M/S B.K.Steels vs. The Assistant Commissioner (State Tax) - Telangana High Court, 15 June 2026

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[ 3488 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G,M. MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION NO: 1 7499 0F 2026 Between: AND ..PETITIONER yr^ ?[9TEELS, Represented by its proprietor, Sri Madan Sisudia Jain, 22-8-37211 , charminar Road, purani Haveri, Hydera bad-02, tetangana staie-' 1 2 The Assistant Commissioner (State Tax), Charminar Circle, Charminar Division, M.J.Road, Nampally, Hyderabad_s00 OO1. :l1f_:l Tefl_Oa1a, Represented by the Secretary to State of retangana, Kevenue Department, Government Secretariat Buildings, SaifIOaO, Hyderabad, Telangana- plN-500 004. ..RESPONDENTS Petition under Nlicre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be preased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more in the nature of writ of Mandamus, setting aside the craimed consequentiar show-cause Notice dated 07 -01-2026 and its summary in Form GST DRc-01 and the craimed consequentiar assessment orders dated 11-03-2026 and its summary in Form GST DRC-07 dated 11-03-2026 and the proceedings dated 1r-03-2026 purportedry issued under section 74 of the GST Acts, 2017 for the varrous reasons detaired in the part B of this affidavit and to award the exemprary costs of Rs.50,000 on the Respondent No..l. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under section 151 CPC prayrng that rn the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the collection of the disputed tax of Rs.123.77,811, and the penalty of Rs '123,77,811 (Total Rs. 247,55,622) and the unquantified interest for the various reasons mentioned in detail in the part B of the affidavit, and to pass such other order or the orders in the interest of Justice, lest the Petitioner will be put to irreparable economic loss. The disputed levy of tax, penalty and interest have no legs to stand The balance of convenience is clearly in favour of the petitioner and against the Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GOONDLA VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPECIAL GOVT PLEADER FOR STATE TAX

The Court made the following: ORDER

F*-A:EEEEEEiE IN THE HIGH COIJRT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITIoN No. 17499 of 2026 DATED :15.06.2 026 Between: M/s. B,K. Steels ... Petitioner AND Thc Assistant Commissioner (State Tax), Charminar Circle, Hydcrabatl, antl another ORDER: ... Rcspondents Sri Goondla Venkateswarlu, learned counsel appears for petitioner. Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government pleader for State Tax appears for respondents.

The irnpugned proceedings relate to Financial year 2022-23 in respeot of which after the remand by this Court vide common order dated 25.07 .2024 in Writ Petition Nos. I g654 and 1g766 of 2024, a fresh show cause notice was issued leading to passing of the order dated 11 .03.2026 under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (fbr short 'the Act'). The text of the order passed in those writ petitions is extracted hereunder as it has some bearing on the outcome of the present Writ Petition.

-Er ll( J (AKrS. J) & CN1M. J W.P No 17499 oI2026 '1. l-earnecl coLrnsel lor the parties lairly adrritted thal a right of' personal hearing as envisaged unrler Section 7i('1) of the Goods and Services -lax Act, 2017 lras not been provided to the petitioner before passing /\ssessu'rcnt Ordcr and therefore. it is agreed that the r\ssessrncnt Ordcr rnal'be set aside and the Assessing Olficer mar be directed to provrde personal hearing to thc petitioner and pass a lresh order in accordance wrth Itu. ,1 . In r icrr ol the consensus arrived at. Assessnlent Ordcr dated 30.05 2024 is set aside. The r.ratter is restorcd back in the file of Assessing Officcr, rrho shall gi.re personal hearing to the petitioner Jn 08.08.1021 at I l;10 A.M. or any othel date as per Assessing Olficcr's conr,crieuce. For this purpose, to f'csh notice $rll be required to be issued to the petitioncr. Tlre petitionel will be at liberty to raise all possiblc groLrnds dLrring pcrsonal hearing. 5. 'fhe pctitioller may file reply to the shcw c:rLrse notice rrithin 7 dals from toda1. fhe \\ rit Petitions are disposed of. No costs.'

What has happened after the remand b)' this Corrrt is that the Assessing Officer rvithout passing a lresh assessment order afler compliance ol'the personai hearing requirement as per liberty granted by this (lourt has issued a sccond sholr' cause notice and decided vide impugned order dated 11.03.2026. 2

turG[GGlrlt HCJ (AKTS, J) & GMM, J w P.No. r7499 of 2026

Leamed counsel for the rival parties have addressed us on the permissibility of the Assessing Officer to undertake an exercise despite an order passed by this Court in effect confining the adjudication to the show cause notice issued upon the petitioner.

The impugned order covers Financial year 2022-23 which was the subject matter of Writ Petition No.18766 of 2024. 6. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that a reply of the petitioner was not duly considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that in the other connected Writ petition No.lg654 of 2024 which relates to the Financial Year 2023-24, similar action has been taken by issuance ofa fresh show cause notice and an adjudication order passed thereupon confirming the demand on grounds which were not taken in the show cause notice. It is submitted that vide order dated 11.06.2026 in W.P.No.17540 of 2026, this Court has set aside the fresh assessment order in W.P.No. 1 8654 of 2024 while granting liberty ro the Proper Officer to pass order afresh on the first show cause notice. Similar order may be passed in the present writ petition.

Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that there is no difference in the show cause notice issued at the first instance and the show cause notice upon which the adjudication has been made after the remand by this Court. As such, in effect, the petitioner has not suf'fered any prej udice. 3

--I llCJ (AKrS. J) & GMNI, J W.P :,lo I7499 of 2026

Wc have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Bcrelt of getting into the details of ingredients u'hich have been taken to inr oke the provision of Section 74 of the Act in the first sholr' cause nolicc or the l)otice issued lor the same Financial Year at the second insl:rnce after the remand leading to the impugned adjudication, we are of the considercd view that in the light of the directions passed by this Court vlde cotnmon order dated 25.0'7.2024 in the Writ Petitions referred to liereinabolc. the Assessing Officer n'as obliged to adjudicate on the shou cause notice after giving a personal hearing to the petitioner and upon consjderation ol any reply fumished by him. fhe course adopted by' the Assessing Officer to issue a second shovl' cause notice without carrying out the adjudication proceeding was something which was not permissible in view of the directions passed by the Court in the previous round of litigation. Such a course on the part of the Assessing Officer u orrld in effect amount to ovcneaching the order of this Court, which cannot be pennitted. in similar circumstances, r'rde order dated I 1.06.2026 in W.P.No. 17540 of 2026, this Coun has remanded the matter to thc Proper Of ljcer in W.P.No.l8654 of 2024 in the case of the same petitioner. l'herclore. on this legal ground. rve are constrained to interfere in the impugned adjudication order by setting it aside while giving an opportunity' once again to the Assessing Officer to pass an order on the basis o1'the first show cause notice and compliance of the 4

-:.: . _@BgpsMEr!7 To, BSR BS M. VIJAYA BHASKER JOINT REqISTRAR // ,. /a- SECTIOh"OFFICER HCJ (AKTS, J)& CMM, J w .P No.l'l499 ol 2026 personal hearing after due consideration of the reply furnished by the petitioner, in accordance with law.

10.

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside' The matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer. The instant Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of' There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed' 5 ////

The Assistant Commissioner (State Tax), Charminar Circle, Charminar Division, M.J.Road, Nampally, Hyderabad-SOO 001. 2. The Secretary to State of Telangana, Revenue Department, Government Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad, State of Telangana- PIN'500

004.3.

One CC to SRI GOONDLA VENKATESWARLU, Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CCs to SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPECIAL GOVT PLEADER FOR STATE TAX, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

Two CD Copies gr

HIGH COURT DATED: 1510612026 ORDER WP.No.17499 ot 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS 1Y\E ST4rF oo 2 2 JUN 2026 z a-. * t ,o oE.c, ,^.*cY c? 6 ), t