Telangana HC Grants Interim Stay on GST Levy for Extra Neutral Alcohol
Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court granted an interim stay on a showcause notice proposing levy of GST on supply of extra neutral alcohol (ENA) to liquor manufacturing units. The panel, comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin, was hearing a writ petition filed by Radical Bio Organics challenging the notice issued in December, along with the final audit report. The impugned notice proposed the levy of GST on ENA supplied to bottling units for the period between April 2022 and March 2024.
The petitioner contended that ENA, primarily used as a base for the manufacture of alcoholic liquor for human consumption, fell outside the ambit of GST under the regime governing tax on alcohol. Counsel contended that under the constitutional framework, particularly the division of taxing powers between the Union and the States, alcoholic liquor for human consumption was expressly kept outside the purview of GST.
He contended the transaction was subject to Value Added Tax (VAT) under the Telangana VAT Act. Imposition of GST in addition to VAT, it was argued, would not only be contrary to settled taxation principles but would also impose an undue financial burden on the industry, affecting pricing and market stability. The petitioner emphasized that such classification is artificial and contrary to law.
The Telangana High Court granted bail to an accused said to be affiliated to the BRS for allegedly assaulting a Congress worker during the recent sarpanch elections in Suryapet district. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by Shaik Subhani who was booked by the Mattampally police.
According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on February 14 when the complainant, a Congress supporter, was allegedly attacked by the petitioner and others linked to the BRS after he refused to join their party and supported Congress candidates in local elections. It is alleged that one of the co-accused stabbed the complainant, while others who intervened sustained injuries. The petitioner argued that the case was politically motivated and that he was falsely implicated. It was submitted that he was in judicial custody since February and that substantial investigation already been completed.
