M/S. Seiko Polyclosures vs. The Deputy Commissioner

Held

The Court noted that the Petitioner, after some arguments, sought liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned order. The Petitioner submitted that there might be some delay in approaching the appellate authority and requested sympathetic consideration. The Court granted liberty to the Petitioner to prefer an appeal within a period of four weeks with statutory pre-deposit. The Court directed the appellate authority to consider the question of delay condonation sympathetically, taking into account the facts and circumstances. The Court explicitly stated that since the Petitioner sought liberty to prefer an appeal, it did not wish to comment on the merits of the contentions raised by the parties. The appellate authority was instructed to proceed to decide the appeal on merits after considering the grounds of appeal available to the Petitioner.

Facts

M/s. Seiko Polyclosures (Petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court challenging an order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 01.11.2025, issued by the Deputy Commissioner (ST)-2, Hyderabad (First Respondent). The order pertains to the tax period 2018-19. The Petitioner alleged that the order was unsigned and passed without jurisdiction, citing issues with the inspection authorization, the invocation of Section 74 of the GST Act, and being barred by limitation. The Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to set aside the impugned order. The Petitioner also filed an interlocutory application seeking a stay of further proceedings, including recovery of tax, penalty, and interest.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 01.11.2025, issued under Section 74 of the GST Acts, 2017, for the financial year 2018-19, is without jurisdiction, invalid, and illegal due to being unsigned, lacking proper inspection authorization, and invoking Section 74 without sufficient grounds, and being barred by limitation. Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner contended that the impugned order was unsigned, passed without jurisdiction, invalid, deemed never to have been issued, barred by limitation, contrary to law, arbitrary, capricious, baseless, and illegal. They specifically raised concerns about a single authorization for inspection without a separate authorization for assessment, and the improper invocation of Section 74 of the GST Act. They relied on the principle that an unsigned order is a nullity. Revenue's Arguments: The learned counsel for the State Tax submitted that the Petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned order, taking all available grounds on law and facts before the appellate authority.