MEERA ASSOCIATES vs NV Satyanarayana Assistant Commissioner State Tax, SESHAGIRI RAO TOTAKURA

1

GSTAT

State Bench Hyderabad
Division Bench Court No. Court I
APL/16/HYD/2026
MEERA ASSOCIATES .............Appellant
Versus
SESHAGIRI RAO TOTAKURA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
SECUNDERABAD STU 1 SECUNDERABAD, DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER (ST) SECUNDERABAD & ORS. .............Respondent

Quorum
Hon’ble Sushil Kumar Sharma, Member(Judicial)
Hon’ble Duvvuri Krishna Srinivas, Member (Technical)
Counsel for Appellant
ASHOK KUMAR GUNDA
ASHOK KUMAR GUNDA
Counsel for Respondent
SHRI SRINIVASULU STATE
REPRESENTATIVE
SHRI NARENDER
SHRI SRINIVASULU STATE
REPRESENTATIVE
SHRI NARENDER
Form GST APL-04A
[See rules 113(1) & 115]
Summary of the order and demand after issue of order by the GST Appellate Tribunal
whether remand order : Yes
Order reference no. : ZA360361026000383H Date OF Hearing: 28/09/2026
Date of order : 27/10/2026
1. GSTIN/Temporary ID/UIN - 36ADWPR2152D1ZC
2. Appeal Case Reference no. - APL/16/HYD/2026 Date - 27/01/2026
Name of the appellant - MEERA ASSOCIATES , [email protected] ,
3.
9700693914

2

Name of the respondant -
1. NV Satyanarayana Assistant Commissioner State Tax , [email protected] ,
9121629255
2. SESHAGIRI RAO TOTAKURA
4.
5. Order appealed against - AD3602240018189
(5.1) Order Type - Demand Order
(5.2) Ref Number - ZD361224010790S Date - 10/12/2024
6. Personal Hearing - 27/10/2026 28/09/2026 12/08/2026 24/06/2026
Order in brief - circumstances of the case and in view of the various judicial decisions
discussed in above paras, the impugned order is non-speaking and passed without
considering the explanation and evidences produced by the appellant. In these
circumstances the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the original
adjudicating authority to pass fresh order after taking into account, the explanations
furnished by the petitioner and documents, in support thereof. Let such order be passed
within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7.
Summary of Order
8. If demand order then whether demand quantified: Yes
Section-I
Particulars Central tax State/UT tax Integrated tax Cess Total
Disputed

Amount
Determined
Amount
Disputed
Amount
Determined
Amount
Disputed
Amount
Determined
Amount
Disputed
Amount
Determined
Amount
Disputed
Amount
Determined
Amount
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
2294339 0 2294339 0 0 0 0 0 4588678 0
(a) Tax
(b)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Interest

3

229434 0 229434 0 0 0 0 0 458868 0
(c) Penalty
(d) Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
(e) Others

(f) Refund 0 0 0 0 0
Section-II
Place of Supply/Name of
Demand Tax Interest Penalty Other Total
State/UT
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Amount in
0 0 0 0 0
dispute

Amount
0 0 0 0 0
Determined
9. For Other orders and Demand orders which are not quantified:
Issues as raised
by proper
officer
Issues as determined by
Order by GST Appellate Tribunal
Appellate/Revisional authority
Short or non-

5047546.
payment of tax
10. If remanded with directions:

a) Remanded to: Adjudicating Authority

4

b) Directions subject to which remanded, if any:
circumstances of the case and in view of the various judicial decisions discussed in
above paras, the impugned order is non-speaking and passed without considering the
explanation and evidences produced by the appellant. In these circumstances the
impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the original adjudicating
authority to pass fresh order after taking into account, the explanations furnished by
the petitioner and documents, in support thereof. Let such order be passed within
eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.


ORDER
FINAL ORDER 24/COURT-1/HYD/2026

Per Duvvuri Krishna Srinivas, Member (Technical)

1.0 M/s Meera Associates (hereinafter referred to as “the Appellant”) has instituted
the present appeal under Sec 112 of Central Goods and Services Act, 2017
(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) against the Order in Appeal No.
ZD3612240107905, dated 10.12.2024, (hereinafter referred to as “the order
impugned”) passed by the First Appellate Authority (hereinafter referred to as
the FAA”)
2.0 The Appellant is a registered taxable person engaged in “transportation of goods
through rail. He is a registered lease holder of Railways. The appellant collects
goods / materials from the customers and arranges to send them in railway parcel
services and issues taxable invoices for the services rendered.
3.0 The issue under dispute arise out of examination of the information filed in
annual return in GSTR-9 form (for the financial year 2017-18 ) under various
Heads and the information furnished in Tran-I, GSTR-01, GSTR-2A, GSTR-3B,
E-Way bills and other records available, by the department. This exercise
resulted in allegations of (i) underdeclaration of net tax liability and (ii) excess

5

claim of ITC. Accordingly, SCN dated 17.11.2021 was issued proposing to tax
demand on outward supplies and recovery of excess ITC in GSTR-3B compared
to the net ITC available in GSTR-9. The learned Adjudicating Authority passed
order dated 28.12.2022, rejecting Appellant’s submissions and confirming all
proposals made in SCN on the grounds that tax payer has not submitted any
documentary evidences in support of their explanations.
4.0 Aggrieved by the OIO, the appellant preferred an appeal before the FAA under
Section 107(1) of the Act. The FAA disposed the appeal vide the order
impugned. In the order impugned, the main observations are as follows:
(i) Regarding underdeclared tax on outward supplies, the appellant
submitted that they have transported goods (hatchery eggs) by rail, is an
exempt service. Their contentions were rejected on ground that appellants
have not submitted any documentary evidence in their support except a
copy of notification 12/2017.
(ii) Regarding excess utilisation of ITC, as party contended that their latest
GSTR 2A was up-to-dated, the same was verified with records and found
that as per tax liability and ITC summary obtained from GSTN portal.
Accordingly, the demand s modified / reduced and ordered for payment
of balance excess ITC, alongwith applicable penalty.
5.0 Being aggrieved with impugned order as FAA has not appreciated the factual
and legal position in right perspective, the appellant has filed an application for
rectification under Section 161 of the Act on 07.01.2025. The same was
rejected by FAA, observing that fresh documentary evidence cannot be
submitted during rectification proceedings.

6

Submissions by Appellants.
6.0 The appellants, being aggrieved by the order impugned, is in appeal on the
grounds summarised in succeeding paragraphs.
6.1 The evidence was placed before FAA and adjudicating authority to show that
their outward supplies were exempt from payment of tax to indicate their stand
that there was no warrant for payment of tax on transport of goods (hatchery
eggs) by rail. In support of their claim, they have produced copy of notification
No. 12/2017 and also copy of Advance Rulings by AAR authorities confirming
that fresh eggs including hatching eggs, qualify as “agricultural produce” and
their transportation by rail is exempt from GST.
6.2 The learned FAA failed to see that in respect of transportation of goods by rail
for the subsequent period during 2021-22, by order dated 29.11.2025 the learned
GST authorities granted benefit of exemption under notification No. 12/2017.
Therefore, mere reflection of their supplies for the earlier period under wrong
taxable category in the concerned GSTR-9 due to error in data entry at the time
of filing, would not disentitle them, the benefit of exemption.
6.3 They incorrectly filed GSTR-3B and GSTR-9 returns for the year 2017-18
without claiming exemption status for transportation of hatching eggs via
Railways and showing all receipts as taxable. Further, they stated that, as there
is no provision in the Act to file revised returns, they could not rectify the same.
The learned FAA and Adjudicating Authorities ought to have seen that even if
appellant does not claim benefit under a particular notification in the initial stage,
the appellant is not prohibited from claiming such benefit at a later stage. In
support of their contention they submitted a copy of decision of Hon’ble Apex

7

Court in the case of Share Medical Care Vs UOI reported in 2007 (209) ELT
321(SC)
6.4 They further contended that the FAA is duty bound to decide the substantive
issue of taxability since it goes to the very root of demand. The appellant has
also stated that all necessary documents like sample copies of Indian Railway
parcel way bills / luggage tickets, invoices for transportation of eggs, to satisfy
the eligible criteria were filed before the FAA; hence the orders passed ignoring
these documents are unsustainable in law. Further, they have submitted sample
copies of parcel way bills / luggage tickets issued by Indian Railways for the
months of July 2017 to March, 2018 alongwith their present appeal.
6.5 They submit that the order impugned is a non-speaking order, without discussing
the evidence submitted and closing to say that appellant simply provided a copy
of notification No. 12/2017 is not correct and proper. Further, they stated that
they have rectified the GSTR-1 returns for the years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-
20 in the month of July, August, 2018 and March 2020, respectively.
6.6 In line, the appellant prays that the order impugned be set aside and that such
other order as may be deemed fit be passed.
Cross-objection by the Respondents.
7.0 The order impugned and OIO concerned are well considered orders passed
strictly in accordance with mandate of provisions of the Act. It is submitted that
the appellant has not filed any documents to show the goods transported by him
are exempt from payment of tax in terms of Notification No. 12/2017 Central
Tax (R) dated 28.06.2017.
7.1 The Deputy Commissioner concerned, after going through the returns filed by
the appellant for the period 2017-18, noticed that the appellant has not declared

8

correct tax liability and also claimed excess ITC. In view of the same, he issued
a SCN dated 17.11.2021 under Section 73 read with Rule 142. After examining
the averments made by appellants and documents / replies submitted by
appellants, OIO was passed.
7.2 The appellant has not filed any documents even before the FAA. However, after
going through the available records, the FAA found that the appellant is eligible
for ITC to some extent and same was allowed. He also reduced penalty
consequent to reduction of demand. Though, a reasoned order was passed by
FAA, the appellant filed a petition seeking rectification of orders introducing
new evidence, invoking the provisions of Section 161 of the Act, which was not
applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, the said application was
rejected.
7.3 In reply to other grounds, they stated that the same are repetitive in nature and
need not be specifically answered. The appellant has not produced any material
in support of his case and hence, the FAA passed orders in accordance with law
giving cogent reasons.
Issues for determination.
8.0 On consideration of the appeal, cross objections, oral and written submissions of
both sides, the following issue arise for determination.:
(i) whether the FAA and Adjudicating authority were correct in rejecting the
appeals by the appellants in cryptic and non-speaking manner.
(ii) whether the FAA was correct in passing rejection order stating that “no
documentary evidence is produced” when the appellant has produced the
same as evidenced by acknowledgements on the written submissions.

9

(iii) whether the appellant deserves another chance for passing a speaking and
reasoned orders after examining the evidences produced by him.
FINDINGS:
9.0 From the appeal papers and from the various oral and written submissions by
both the sides, following points were noticed.
(i) In SCN, under-declaration of net tax liability was alleged, basing on the
examination of various returns filed by the tax payer.
(ii) Tax payer has accepted the difference of figures between GSTR-9 and
other returns and attributed it to wrong filing and to showing exempted
turnover under taxable turnover Head due to error in data entry.
(iii) Original adjudicating authority rejected the claim stating that no
documentary evidence was submitted in support of their contention.
(iv) In the order impugned, the FAA, at para 4 stated that, counsel for tax payer
appeared for personal hearing and reiterated the same objections and
submitted copy of notification No. 12/2017 alongwith certain documents.
(v) From the documents submitted by the appellant, it was seen that written
submissions dated 15.02.2024 were submitted to FAA and
acknowledgement stamp on that shows receipt 19.02.2024. The
document indicates submission of copies of 1). Advance ruling for
transport of eggs through railway as exempted service 2). Reply already
submitted before adjudicating authority dated 04.03.2021. 3) Turnover
statements for the year 2017-18.

10

(vi) Further, the tax payer has submitted another letter dated 11.07.2024 to
FAA, which was acknowledged on 11.07.2024, enclosing copies of
GSTR-1, GSTR-3B, GSTR-9 returns for the period from July 2017 to
March 2018 and month-wise taxable and exempted turnover details from
July 2017 to March, 2018.
(vii) The tax payer vide his letter dated 28.02.2024 (ack 29.02.2024) to FAA,
has submitted, copy of notification No. 12/2017, freight marketing
circular NO. 3 of 2019, statement showing the details of taxable and
exempted goods transported through rail from July 2017 to March 2018,
reply filed on 25.11.2021 DRC-06 alongwith reply letter GST on sales
amendment sheet 2017-18 and tax payer response sheet, GSTR-2A from
July 2017 to March 2018 and reply filed by tax payer.
(viii) At para 7 of the order impugned, FAA mentioned that “the contention
raised by the appellants are verified with record and found that the
appellant have not submitted any documentary evidence in their support
except submitted simply a copy of notification No. 12/2017”. Basing on
that argument, FAA rejected the claim of appellant.
10.0 At the outset, the contentions of adjudicating authority and FAA that tax payer
has not produced any evidence to support his claim doesn’t appear to be correct.
As discussed in para 9 above, there is clear evidence that appellant has submitted
documents in support of his claim. Further, in the cross objections filed by
respondents, they still maintained same stand (para 7 supra). Further in the cross
objections, they stated that the averments of appellant are repetitive in nature and
need not be specifically answered.

11

10.1 It appears that the averments of respondents, “no documentary evidence is
produced” is untrue and devoid of merits in view of discussions in above paras.
Hence passing a non-speaking order without reasons/discussions on the evidence
produced by the appellant is unfair and against the basic canons of judicial
process. It is a well settled principle of law that every order by an administrative
authority in exercise of its judicial or quasi-judicial function must be supported
by reason. Such principles of law has been settled by the Five Judges Bench of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.N. Mukherjee Vs Union of India
reported in (1990) 4SCC 594 and particularly paragraph 40 of the said judgment
is relevant which is quote herein:-
“ For the reasons aforesaid, it must be concluded that except in cases where the
requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, an
administrative authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions is required
to record the reasons for the decision”.
10.2 In case of cosmos Business machines vs UOI (TSCDB) -GST -HC (Guj 2024),
the Gujarat High Court quashed and set aside the order, since the same was
passed without considering the reply as it confirms SCN, resulting in total non-
application of mind.
10.3 Similarly in case of Chetak Logistics Limited vs UOI (TSCDB)-GST HC (Delhi)
2024) and in case of J.P. Polymers vs State Tax Officer (Gr.2) Chengalpattu (TS
DB)-GST-HC (MAD) 2024-970) the quasi-judicial orders were quashed on the
ground that the orders lacked reasons and also lacked an application of mind to
replies given by the petitioner. In case of writ petition No. 13248 of 2026, the
Telangana High Court in its order dated 8.6.2026, set aside the rejection order

12

holding that it is cryptic and non-speaking order without proper consideration of
tax payer’s explanation.
10.4 From the above discussions, it is evident that the findings in the order impugned
are arrived at without considering the evidence produced by the Appellant,
warranting reconsideration. Further, after due consideration of judicial decisions
discussed supra, we are of the opinion that the principles laid down therein are
relevant and applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and
have been duly taken into consideration by us while arriving at our conclusions.
10.5 Accordingly, the issues (i) & (ii) framed in para 8 above are answered.
11.0 Coming to merits of the case of appellants, it was noticed that the goods
transported are “hatching eggs” as mentioned in the sample parcel way
bills/luggage tickets alongwith sender’s name as “Meera Associates. Copy of
freight marketing circular No. 3 of 2019 of Railway Board, clarified that “fresh
eggs” in shell on which no further processing is done are covered under definition
of “agricultural produce” and, therefore exemption at S.No.20 of the notification
No. 12/2017 Central Tax ® dated 28.06.2017 appears to be available in case of
transportation of eggs by rail.
11.1 Notification No. 12/2017-Central tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 exempts the intra-
state supply of services of description mentioned in table given there from tax as
indicated under respective columns.

13



TABLE
Sl.No. Chapter
Heading Code
Description of services Rate Condition
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--


20 9965 Services by way of transportation by rail
or a vessel from one place in India to
another of the following goods
(a) …..
(b)…..
(c)….
(d)….
(e) agricultural produce
NIL NIL
…
….
….


It can be observed from the notification that services by way transportation of
“agricultural produce” by rail from one place in India to another is unconditionally
exempt from GST.
11.2 In their submissions, the appellant has relied on Apex Court judgement in case
of share Medical Care Vs UOI, 20078 (209) E.L.T. 321 (SC) wherein Hon’ble
Supreme Court at Para 15 has stated that “From the above discussions, it is clear
that even if an applicant does not claim benefit under a particular notification at
the initial stage, he is not debarred, prohibited or stopped from claiming such
benefit at a later stage”. The Ld. counsel contended that the order impugned and
adjudication proceedings were initiated by violations of the principles of natural
justice in as much as neither the OIO or the order impugned set out the reasons
or particulars, denying / rejecting the claims of the appellant.

14

11.3 Further, it was observed that concerned GST authorities, while assessing the tax
for the later period i.e. Financial year 2021-22 vide order dated 29.11.2025, for
the appellants, has granted the benefit of exemption notification No. 12/2017
Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, with regard to transport of hatchery eggs
by rail.
Accordingly, we are of the view that the appellant deserves a chance to claim the
benefit of exemption notification, if otherwise eligible. The issue (iii) in para 8
above is answered accordingly.
12. Considering the above facts, circumstances of the case and in view of the various
judicial decisions discussed in above paras, the impugned order is non-speaking
and passed without considering the explanation and evidences produced by the
appellant. In these circumstances the impugned order is set aside. The matter is
remitted to the original adjudicating authority to pass fresh order after taking into
account, the explanations furnished by the petitioner and documents, in support
thereof. Let such order be passed within eight weeks from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order.
13. On the above terms, the appeal is disposed of.
14. There shall be no order as to costs.
(pronounced in open court on 27.10.2026)
Digitally signed by
SUSHIL KUMAR SHARMA
27-10-2026 17:25:12 IST

(Sushil Kumar Sharma)



(Duvvuri Krishna Srinivas)
Dated: 27.10.2026