M/S. New Bombay Fruit Juice And Chat Bhandar vs. Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes)

Held

The Court, without commenting on the merits of the challenge to the impugned order-in-original, disposed of the writ petition. It granted liberty to the petitioner to prefer a rectification application within one week under Section 161 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, before the proper officer. The Court directed that if such an application is made, the proper officer would consider it and pass appropriate orders within two weeks thereafter, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The respondents' counsel submitted that the proper officer would examine the plea in light of Section 161 of the TGST Act and the circular dated 14.10.2015. The Court's decision is based on the availability of a statutory remedy for rectification.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. New Bombay Fruit Juice and Chat Bhandar, represented by its Proprietor, Mr. Rahim Hussain Aersiya, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 29.11.2024, a show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 29.11.2024, and an impugned order dated 28.02.2025. These were issued by the Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes), Malkajgiri-1 Circle, and other respondent authorities. The Petitioner also challenged a notice for intimating discrepancies in returns after scrutiny in Form ASMT-10 dated 20.07.2023 and a notice in Form GST ASMT-10 dated 27.07.2023, along with a show cause notice dated 20.12.2023 and notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 20.12.2023. The impugned order dated 28.02.2025 was passed without signatures. The tax period in dispute is April, 2020 to March, 2021.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 28.02.2025, passed without signatures, is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, and legally unenforceable, violating the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and void due to non-compliance with Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and Telangana GST Rules, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The Petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without proper verification of records and was vague. They argued that the variation in turnovers between GSTR-3B and GSTR-8 was due to technical issues persisting with the GST Portal, as clarified by their e-commerce providers. They also highlighted that the order was passed without signatures, rendering it invalid. The Petitioner further argued that the proper officer failed to properly verify the records. Respondents' arguments: The respondents did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment regarding the validity of the order or the technical issues raised by the petitioner. However, they submitted that if liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach the proper officer, the officer would examine the plea in light of Section 161 of the TGST Act and a circular dated 14.10.2015.