Shubham Naturo Wellness vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax

Held

The Court, after hearing the learned counsel for both parties, did not comment on the merits of the contentions raised. Since the petitioner sought liberty to prefer an appeal, the Court granted this liberty. The petitioner was permitted to file an appeal within a period of two weeks, along with a delay condonation application and statutory pre-deposit. The Court directed that the appellate authority would consider the question of delay, taking into account the facts and circumstances, and if satisfied on the point of delay, would proceed to decide the appeal on its merits in accordance with law. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also closed.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Shubham Naturo Wellness, represented by its Partner, Smt. Bore Nirmala, filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court. The petition challenged a Show Cause Notice dated 12.06.2024 and an order issued in Form DRC-07 dated 03.02.2026, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Madhapur Division. These actions were taken under the CGST/TGST Act, 2017, for the tax period April 2019 to March 2020. The petitioner sought to declare the impugned notice and order as void, arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, and violative of principles of natural justice and constitutional provisions. An interlocutory application was also filed seeking a stay on the operation of the impugned order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned Show Cause Notice and Order, issued under the CGST/TGST Act, 2017, are void, arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, and violative of the principles of natural justice and constitutional provisions (Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265)? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner sought to set aside the impugned notice and order, contending they were illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner's counsel, after some arguments, sought liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned order, acknowledging a potential delay in approaching the appellate authority and requesting consideration of the appeal sympathetically. Respondents' Arguments: The learned Assistant Government Pleader for State Tax submitted that the petitioner was at liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned order, taking all available grounds of law and fact before the appellate authority for the subject tax period.