GSTAT Hyderabad remitted a 2017-18 demand after finding the appellate authority wrongly said no documents were filed, and allowed the rail parcel operator to seek the Notification 12/2017 exemption.
GSTAT Hyderabad has held that a taxpayer who reported exempt rail transport of agricultural produce as taxable in its returns may still claim the exemption, and that an order recording that no documents were filed, when they were, is non-speaking. [Meera Associates v. Seshagiri Rao Totakura, Deputy Commissioner Secunderabad Stu 1 & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3177-GSTAT(Hyderabad)-GST]
The Bench of Sushil Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial), and Duvvuri Krishna Srinivas, Member (Technical), set aside the order-in-appeal dated 10 Dec 2024 and remitted the matter. Duvvuri Krishna Srinivas wrote the order.
The appellant, a lease holder of railway parcel space, sends hatching eggs by rail. Its GSTR‑9 for 2017-18 showed all receipts as taxable, leading to a demand for under-declared tax and excess ITC. Both authorities rejected the exemption claim, saying that only a copy of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) had been produced.
From acknowledged letters, the Bench found that the appellant had filed an advance ruling, railway parcel way bills, returns, month-wise exempt turnover and a Railway Board freight circular before the first appellate authority. The finding that no evidence was produced was “untrue and devoid of merits.”
Serial No. 20 of the notification exempts transport of agricultural produce by rail. Citing Share Medical Care Vs UOI, that a benefit not claimed at the outset may be claimed later, and noting that the authorities had allowed the same exemption for 2021-22 by an order dated 29 Nov 2025, the Bench held that the appellant deserved a chance to claim it if otherwise eligible.
The matter was remitted to the original authority for a fresh speaking order after considering the evidence. No costs were awarded.
2026-juristway.com-3177-GSTAT(Hyderabad)-GST
