M/S.Sneha Waddera And Bvlccs Limited vs. The Superintendent Of Central Tax

Held

The Court did not delve into the merits of the contentions raised by either party. Instead, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought liberty to prefer an appeal against the order-in-original. The Court granted this liberty, directing the petitioner to file an appeal within two weeks with statutory pre-deposit and a delay condonation application. The Court stipulated that the appellate authority would consider the delay sympathetically, taking into account the facts and circumstances, and if satisfied, proceed to decide the appeal on merits. During the two-week period for filing the appeal, no coercive steps were to be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned garnishee notice. The writ petition was disposed of with this liberty.

Facts

M/s. Sneha Waddera and BVLCCS Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court challenging an order-in-original dated February 19, 2025, a summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated February 21, 2025, and a show cause notice dated November 26, 2024, issued by the Superintendent of Central Tax, Ramagundam CGST Range (the respondent). The petitioner claimed to have become aware of a tax liability only upon receiving a garnishee notice in Form GST DRC-13 on August 21, 2025, for attachment of its bank account. The tax period in dispute is 2020-21. The petitioner sought to declare the respondent's actions illegal and void, and to set aside the impugned orders. They also sought suspension of the impugned orders and revocation of the garnishee notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the 1st Respondent in passing the Order-in-Original dated February 19, 2025, the Summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated February 21, 2025, levying tax and penalty under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Acts, 2017, without providing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, is contrary to the Acts and violative of principles of natural justice and Rule of Law? The petitioner argued that no opportunity of being heard was provided. 2. Whether the action of the 1st Respondent in issuing the Summary of Show Cause Notice dated November 26, 2024, and passing the summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated February 21, 2025, without maintaining a three-month gap, is contrary to Section 73(2) of the CGST/SGST Acts, 2017? The petitioner contended that the statutory gap was not maintained. 3. Whether the action of the 1st Respondent in not serving Form GST DRC-01 as contemplated under Section 142(1A) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, is invalid? The petitioner alleged non-compliance with this provision. 4. Whether the action of the 1st Respondent in issuing the Summary of Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated November 26, 2024, without a physical or digital signature, is void? The petitioner argued that the notice lacked proper authentication. The respondents argued that the petitioner was at liberty to prefer an appeal against the order-in-original.