M/S. Gayathri Seeds And Pesticides vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax
Original PDF →Facts
M/s. Gayathri Seeds and Pesticides (Petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice and proceedings in Form GST DRC-01 dated 27.11.2024, along with an order dated 04.02.2025, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax (1st Respondent) for the tax period April 2020 to March 2021. The Petitioner contended that these documents lacked signatures and were illegal, violating Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules. The Petitioner also challenged recovery proceedings initiated via a garnishee notice dated 17.10.2025. The Petitioner only became aware of the liability upon receiving the garnishee notice.
Held
The Court did not delve into the merits of the contentions raised by the parties. Instead, it granted the Petitioner liberty to prefer an appeal against the order-in-original within two weeks, subject to statutory pre-deposit. The Court directed the appellate authority to consider the appeal sympathetically, taking into account the Petitioner's pursuit of writ remedy. The Petitioner was also permitted to raise all available grounds in law and on facts before the appellate authority. Furthermore, the Court ordered that no coercive steps would be taken against the Petitioner pursuant to the impugned garnishee notice during the two-week period for filing the appeal. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the show cause notice dated 27.11.2024, proceedings in Form GST DRC-01 dated 27.11.2024, and order dated 04.02.2025 issued by the 1st Respondent are illegal and void for want of signatures and non-compliance with Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and Telangana GST Rules, 2017, as argued by the Petitioner. 2. Whether the recovery proceedings initiated vide notice in Form GST DRC-13 dated 17.10.2025 are illegal, as argued by the Petitioner. The Petitioner argued that the impugned notices and order were illegal due to lack of signatures and non-compliance with procedural requirements, specifically Rule 142(1A). The Revenue (Respondents 1 to 3) did not present specific arguments against these contentions in the judgment, but their counsel submitted that the Petitioner was at liberty to prefer an appeal against the order-in-original.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Rule 142(1A)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the fotlowing ORDER !
..,7\ ii I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYD THE HON'BLE TIIE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No.604 of 2026 Dated: 09.01.2026 Between: Mis. Gayathri Seeds & Pesticides, R.p., by its Proprietor, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Choudary, 4151210, Gunj Road, Adilabad, Telangana. ...Petitioner And Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise & Service Tax, Nizamabad Division, Medchal Commissionerate, Knar Estate, 3'd Floor, Nizamabad and 5 others. ...Respondents ORDER: SriK.P. Amarnath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Dominic Fernandes, leamed Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) appears for respondent Nos.l to 3. Sri B. Mukherjee, learned counsel representing Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy solicitor General of India, appears for respondent No.4. /I
lr I l; t;l, ii 2 (--'r
The writ petition has been preferred against the order-in-original dated 30.01.2025 along with summary of order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 04.02.2025 passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the tax period 2020-2021 imposing the tax, penalty and interest.
The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that it has come to know about the liability only upon the issuance of the garnishee notice in Form GST DRC-13 on 17.10.2025 for attachment of its bank account (Annexure P4).
However, after some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to the petitioner to, prefer an appeal against the order-in-original. He submits that some delay might have been occurred in approaching the appellate authority and therefore, he may be directed to consider it sympathetically.
Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC submits that the petitioner was at liberty to prefer an appeal against the order-in-original and DRC-07 taking all the grounds as are available in law and,on facts before the appellate authority in respect of the subject tax period
However, upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, since the petitioner seeks liberty to prefer an appeal, we do not wish to comment on the merits of the contentions raised by the parties. ?i
3 r)
If the petitioner prefers an appeal within a period of two weeks with statutory pre-deposit, the learned appellate authorify would consider it in accordance with law also keeping into consideration that it has been pursuing the writ remedy before this Court in the meantime as well. The petitioner will be at liberty to take all the grounds in law and on facts before the appellate authority. During the period of two weeks within which the petitioner has to file the appeal, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned garnishee notice.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. .T.SRINIVASA REDDY ASSTSTANT REGISTRAR 6- SECTION OFFICER
The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise and Service Tax, Nizamabad Division, Medchal Commissionerate, Knar Estate, 3rd Floor, Nizamabad-s03 003. 2. The Superintendent of Central Tax, Central Excise and Service Tax, Adilabad GST Range, H.No.6-1 0-861811,2nd Floor, Bhuktapur, Adilabad-SO4 001. 3. The Assistant Commissioner (in-situ), Office of the Commissioner of Central Tax (Audit - ll) Commissionerate, Door No.1-98/8/20,21, Sanvi Yamuna Pride, Krithika Layout, Madhapur, Hitech City, Hyderabad - SO0 081. 4. The Principal Secretary, Union of lndia, Government of lndia, Ministry of Finance, 3rd Floor, Jeevan Deep Building, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-l 10 001. 5. The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (CT-lt) Department, Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad.
The Manager, State Bank of lndia, Shivaji Chowk, Bank Road, Adilabad-S04
Two CC's to G.P FOR STATE TAX, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT) 8. one CC to SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUry SOLICITOR GENERAL OF lNDlA, Advocate (OPUC)
One CC to SRI K.P.AMARNATH REDDY, Advocate tOpUCI
One CC to SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES (SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR CBIC) Advocate [OPUC] /// To . 1 1. Two CD Copies sA Nr PMK '::TM I
: ( lh ..4 HIGH COURT DATED:09/01 12026 ORDER WP.No.604 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. '.4 l.f, 2$28 * 03 ttB ,i\*
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.