M/S. Laxmi Chaitanya Enterprises vs. The Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes)

Held

The Court did not delve into the merits of the contentions raised by the parties. Instead, acknowledging the petitioner's request for liberty to prefer an appeal, the Court granted this liberty. The petitioner was directed to file an appeal within two weeks, accompanied by a statutory pre-deposit and a delay condonation application. The Court stipulated that the appellate authority should consider the delay sympathetically, taking into account the facts and circumstances presented, and if satisfied with the explanation for the delay, proceed to decide the appeal on its merits in accordance with the law. The Court explicitly stated that it did not wish to comment on the merits of the case. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the Court facilitated an alternative remedy.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Laxmi Chaitanya Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated 03.06.2022 and an order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 21.08.2024, issued by the Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes), Sangareddy-1 Circle, for the tax period April 2019 to March 2020. The petitioner claimed it had no knowledge of the initial show cause notice and could not file objections. Subsequently, the Superintendent of Central Tax issued another show cause notice, to which the petitioner also failed to respond due to health issues, leading to a confirmed demand. An appeal against this demand was allowed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals). The petitioner only became aware of the impugned order dated 21.08.2024 in July 2026 and alleged it was unsigned and issued without jurisdiction.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned show cause notice dated 31.06.2022 and the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 21.08.2024, issued by the 1st Respondent for the tax period April 2019 to March 2020, are illegal, issued without jurisdiction, and contrary to the Circular vide CCT's Ref No.LIV(2)/331/2025 dated 14.10.2025 and the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 and SGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned order was unsigned, issued without jurisdiction, and contrary to a circular issued by the 5th Respondent and the relevant GST Acts. They also claimed to have only recently become aware of the order due to a delay caused by health issues and lack of knowledge. Revenue/State's arguments: The learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax submitted that the petitioner was at liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority, taking all available grounds.