M/S. Rondeyvoo Eurasia vs. Assistant Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Rondeyvoo Eurasia, represented by its Proprietor, Mr. Katakam Bharath Veer, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated 24.05.2025 and an order dated 01.12.2025, both issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Vidyanagar Circle, Secunderabad Division, for the tax period April 2021 to March 2022. The petitioner contended that these documents lacked proper signatures, rendering them illegal and contrary to the provisions of the CGST Act and TGST Act. The petitioner became aware of these proceedings only when a lien was placed on its bank accounts. Subsequently, a notice in Form GST DRC-13 dated 22.01.2026 was issued, placing a lien on the petitioner's bank accounts with HDFC First Bank and ICICI Bank for an amount of Rs. 12,44,710/-.
Held
The High Court, having considered the submissions, was not inclined to enter into the merits of the issue. Instead, it granted the petitioner liberty to approach the appellate authority within two weeks with a delay condonation application and the statutory pre-deposit. The Court directed that the appellate authority would consider the question of delay sympathetically if satisfied with the reasons provided in the application and then decide the case on its merits. Furthermore, the petitioner was permitted to make an application before the appellate authority to lift the lien on its bank accounts, with the appellate authority directed to take a decision on this request as well. The Court noted that the notice in Form GST DRC-13 dated 22.01.2026, which placed the lien, was for an amount of Rs. 12,44,710/-. The Court disposed of the writ petition without entering into the substantive validity of the show cause notice or the order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the show cause notice dated 24.05.2025 and the consequential order dated 01.12.2025, issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), are illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, due to the absence of physical or digital signatures as required by Rule 142 read with Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017? The petitioner argued that the lack of proper authentication renders the notice and order invalid. The revenue contended that the challenge to the show cause notice and order is belated and that the writ petition should not be entertained, citing the principle laid down in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada, v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited. 2. Whether the lien placed on the petitioner's bank accounts vide notice in Form GST DRC-13 dated 22.01.2026 for an amount of Rs. 12,44,710/- is impermissible, given the alleged illegality of the underlying proceedings? The petitioner relied on the decision in McDowell and Company Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Rule 142, Rule 26(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court m:rde the fo[owing: ORDER
IN THE, HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'I}LE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDTN WRIT PETITION No.4395 of 2026 DATED: 13.02.2026 Between: I\zUs. Rondeyvoo Eurasia, Rep. By its Proprietor, Mr. Katakam Bharath Veer, tt 2-l-427,1", RK Nilyam, 4, Nallakunta, l-lyderabad, Telangana-500 044. .. Petitioner AND Assistant Commissioner (ST), Vidyanagar Circle, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad & 3 others Respondents RDER: Heard Mr. K.P.Amarnath Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr'. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Govemment Pleader for State Tax appearing for respondent Nos.l and2. 2. Writ petition is prayed for the following relief: "For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction by setting aside the impugned show cause notice dated24.5.2025 and impugned order dated 1.12.2025 issued by the l't Respondent for the tax period April,2}2l to March, 2022 trithout having any signatures as illegal and contrary to the provisions under the I t
2 \ I Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Ait, 2017, and pass suclr other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper ip the circrrmstances of the case."
Petirioner has assailed the show cause notice dated 24.05.2025 along with attachmenl to thc show cause notice in Form DRC-O1 and the irnpugned order under Seclion 73 ot-the TelanganaGoods and Services Tax Act,20l7 (for short 'the TGSI- Act') dated 01.12.2025 along with attachment proceedings on the ground the.t the notice or the summary of the order were not authenticated witl-r physical s,gnature or digital signature as per Rule 142 read, with 26(3) of the Central Grlods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The petitioner contends that it became a\'{are of' the impugned show cause notice and the consequential impugned order only when a lien had been placed on its bank account freezing it. The matrer relares to the tax liability for the period April, 2021 to March, 2022. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the irnpugned show cause notice and the impugned consequenlial order.
Learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax appearing for respondent Nos.l and 2 has, at the outset, opposed the prayer on the ground that the challen,ge to the impugned show cause notice and the consequential order is belated. He submits that the notice,in Form GST DRC-13 dated 22.0L.2026 does i not relate to the tax period April, 202L to March, 2022 in respect of the proceedingri/order-in-original which are under challenge. He further submits
3 that the instant writ petition should not be entertained in view of the principles laid down in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada, v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limitedr.
Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore seeks libefty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority with a delay condonation application. He submits that the appellate authority may be directed to consider the question of delay syrnpatheticalty in view of the reasons explained in the delay condonation application. However, he submits the notice in Form GST DRC-13 dated 22.01.2026 has marked a lien on the petitioner's accounts in both the Banks, respondent Nos.3 and 4 for an amount of Rs.12,44,710/- as tax, interest and penalty payable under the provisions of the TGST Act which is impermissible in view of the decision rendered by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Mcdowell and Company Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer2. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances as noted above, this Court is not inclined to enter into the merits of the issue as the petitioner is being allowed liberty to approach the appellate authority. The petitioner may approach the appellate authority within a period of two weeks with a delay condonation application and statutory pre-deposit. It is open for the petitioner to take all such grounds in law and on facts in the appeal. Needless to say, the appellate authority would consider the question of delay and if he is satisfied with the t 1zozo1 19 scc 68 l 2 lteos;2r APSTJ 49 \
i. 4 reasons explained in the delay condonation application, he shall decide the case on merits. It would also be open for the petitioner to make an application before the appellate authority to lift the lien on the undertaking of the petitioner to pay the amount indicated in the notice in lrorm GST DRC-13 dated 22.01..2026. The appellate €uthority lr,ould takc a decision on this request as well.
The instant Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs Miscr:flaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. .A. H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR SISTANT //// OFFICER To,
The ,Assistant Commissioner (ST)' Vidyanagar , Secunderabad Division, Hyderrabad. 2.TheSecretarytoGovernment.(Revenue)^CT.H,.StateTaxtCommercial . Taxers Departmext, E.ti"irriit, HyO"rabad, state of Telangana' 3.ThetVlanager,lDFCFirstBank'Paradisebranch'Hyderabad'
The Manager, lClCl Bank, Kompally Branch' Hyderabad 5.oneCCtoSRlK.P.AMARNATHREDDY,Advocate[oPUC] 6.TwoCCstoSRlSWARooPooRlLLA,SPljsPFoRSTATETAX,High court for the si;i; oi retangana at Hyderabad [ouT]
Twc CD CoPies BSR BS ?nt"
/ / l I HIGH COURT DATEET: 131021202G Y irti: S 14I6 ,.-) 2 7 FLB ZtJZIJ ORDERI WP.No.4395 of Z02G DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOI'T COSTS 'x I >lza *
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.