M/S. Karthikeya Exhibitors vs. The Deputy Commissioner

Held

The Court disposed of both writ petitions in terms of a common order dated 15.10.2025 passed in WP.No.20731 of 2025 and batch cases. In that prior order, the Court noted the submission of the learned Advocate General that the issues raised were rectifiable under the second proviso to Section 161 of the TGST Act, where the six-month limitation period would not apply. The Court accepted the agreement of the learned counsel for the petitioners that grievances relating to multiple show cause notices or orders for the same tax period were amenable to rectification under Section 161 of the TGST Act. The Court directed the concerned proper officers to undertake the exercise of rectification of the impugned notices/orders in accordance with law, within a reasonable time, with due intimation to the assessees. The Court also noted that a circular dated 14.10.2025 had been uploaded on the GST Portal for aggrieved persons to approach the proper officer for rectification. The Court held that if any grievances remained after rectification, or if rectification led to a refund, the petitioners could raise them before the appropriate forum or the proper officer, respectively. No order as to costs was made. Any pending miscellaneous applications were closed.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. Karthikeya Exhibitors, represented by its proprietor, Mr. Srinivas Adepu, filed two writ petitions before the Telangana High Court. The petitions challenged show cause notices and summary orders issued by various Deputy Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners of State Tax. For WP.No.39246 of 2025, the impugned notices and orders pertained to the tax period April 2020 to March 2021. For WP.No.39247 of 2025, the challenged documents related to the tax period April 2018 to March 2019. The Petitioner contended that these notices and orders were illegal, without jurisdiction, contrary to GST provisions, and void due to non-compliance with Rule 142(1A) of the CGST/TGST Rules, 2017, and that the summary orders lacked signatures. The Petitioner also sought a stay on further proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the issuance of multiple show cause notices and summary orders for the same tax period by different authorities, without proper signatures, renders the proceedings illegal, without jurisdiction, and void under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and in violation of Rule 142(1A) of the CGST/TGST Rules, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that the impugned show cause notices and summary orders were illegal, without jurisdiction, and void. Key contentions included the lack of signatures on the summary orders and the non-compliance with Rule 142(1A) of the CGST/TGST Rules, 2017, which mandates proper procedure before passing orders. The Petitioner also highlighted the issuance of multiple notices and orders for the same tax period, indicating procedural impropriety. Respondents' Arguments: The learned Advocate General for the State submitted that the issues raised by the petitioners, such as the issuance of multiple notices or orders for the same tax period, were amenable to rectification under Section 161 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Department agreed to undertake the exercise of rectification in accordance with law, subject to intimation to the petitioners to provide necessary information and submissions.