M/S Vinayaka Restaurant And Bar vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Vinayaka Restaurant and Bar, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated 15.11.2021 and an order dated 29.12.2023, both issued by the 1st Respondent, the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Warangal-Urban 3. These actions pertained to the tax period 2017-18. The petitioner also challenged a notice dated 15.11.2025, issued by the 2nd Respondent to the petitioner's bank, attaching its bank account. The petitioner claimed these notices and the order were issued without authority and were arbitrary. The petitioner became aware of the proceedings only when its bank account was frozen. The revenue contended that the writ petition was belated.
Held
The Court did not delve into the merits of the case. Instead, it granted the petitioner liberty to approach the appellate authority. The petitioner was directed to file a delay condonation application before the appellate authority within two weeks, along with the statutory pre-deposit. The Court further directed that the appellate authority should consider the question of delay sympathetically, provided the reasons explained in the application were satisfactory. If the delay was condoned, the appellate authority was to decide the case on its merits, allowing the petitioner to raise all grounds of law and fact. The Court noted that it was not inclined to enter into the merits of the issue as the petitioner was being allowed to approach the appellate authority.
Key Issues
1. Whether the show cause notice and the consequential order under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, are liable to be quashed on the ground that they were not authenticated with a physical or digital signature as required by Rule 142 read with Rule 26(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the show cause notice and the order were not properly authenticated, making them invalid. They became aware of these proceedings only upon the attachment of their bank account. Revenue's contention: The respondents argued that the writ petition was belated and should not be entertained, citing the principle laid down in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada, v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Rule 142, Rule 26(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER: Learned counsel Sri Srinarayan Toshniwal appears for the petitioner. I
2 sri K.Sai Akarsh, leamed Assistant Government pleader, representing Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government pleader for State Tax, appears for respondents No.l to 3. 2. Petitioner has assailed the show cause notice dated 15.11.2021 along with attachment to the show cause notice in Form DRC-01 and the impugned order under Section 73 of the General Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'rhe Acr') dared 29.12.2023 along with attachment proceedings on the ground that the notice or the summary of the order were not authenticated with physical signature or digital signature as per Rule 142 read with 26(3) of the central Goods and Services Tax Rules,2017. The petitioner contends that it became aware 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 matter relates to the tax liability for the period 2017-2018. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned show cause notice and the impugned consequential order.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents No.l to 3 has, at the outset, opposed the prayer on the ground that the challenge to the impugned show cause notice and the consequential \ t
J n \ order is belated. He submits 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 Limitedl.
Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore seeks liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority with a delay condonation applicafion. He submits that the appellate authority may be directed to consider the question of delay sympathetically in view of the reasons explained in the delay condonation application.
Having regard to the f'acts 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 ro approach the appellate authority. The petitioner may approach the appellate authority within a period of two (2) weeks with a delay condonation application and statutory pre- deposit. [t 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 satisflred with the reasons explained in the delay condonation application, he shall decide the case on merits t III t] II It * * it i! !i 1: 'i li : i ' 1zozo1 19 scc 681 \ \
4 r f', ry
The instant Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. .M.OSMAN ALI BAIG REGISTRAR //II OFFICER To, PMK
The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Warangal-Urban 3 Warangal Division, H.No. 23-1-16311, 4th Floor, Behind Vishal Mart, Hunter Road, Hanamkonda, Hanamkonda District, Pin - 506001. 2. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Warangal-Urban 2 Warangal Division, H.No, 23-1-16311, Behind Vishal Mart, Hunter Road, Hanamkonda, Hanamkonda District, Pin - 506001. 3. The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (CT-ll) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
The Branch Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Kazipet Madikonda .Efa!qh, H Ng. 24-7-24416/1, Main Road, Near NlT, Ramakrishna Colony, Waddepalle, Kazipet, Warangal - 506001, Telangana
One CC to SRl. SRINARAYAN TOSHNIWAL, Advocate IOPUC]
Two CCs to SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR STATE TAX, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]
Two CD Copies BM
$ 4 HIGH COURT DATED:2110112026 *r lr" rr':"r .:. i'i,.:. u ,, i \ C) 1 0 rt8 20?6 C) * ORDER I WP.No.1587 ot 2A26 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS -LA t 0 \ * 7b
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.