M/S. Karthikeya Exhibitors vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Stu-1

Held

The High Court disposed of both writ petitions in terms of a common order dated 15.10.2025 passed in Writ Petition No. 20731 of 2025 and batch cases. In that prior order, the Court noted the submission of the learned Advocate General that issues concerning multiple notices or orders for the same tax period could be rectified under Section 161 of the TGST Act, where the six-month limitation period might not apply. The Court agreed with the petitioners' counsel that these grievances were amenable to rectification under Section 161. Consequently, 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. If rectification led to any grievances not amenable to Section 161, petitioners could approach the appropriate forum. Any refund arising from rectification would also be decided as per law. No order as to costs was made.

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, Telangana. 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 impugned notices and orders related to the tax period April 2018 to March 2019. The Petitioner contended that these notices and orders were illegal, without jurisdiction, contrary to the CGST Act and TGST Act, and void due to non-compliance with Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017, and also lacked signatures. The Petitioner sought to set aside these proceedings and stay further action.

Key Issues

1. Whether the show cause notices and summary orders issued by the respondent authorities are illegal, without jurisdiction, and void for non-compliance with Rule 142(1A) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017, and the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, and for lacking signatures, thereby violating the provisions of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the impugned notices and orders were illegal, without jurisdiction, and void due to the absence of signatures and non-compliance with the mandatory procedural requirement under Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017. Respondents' Contention: The learned Advocate General submitted that the issues raised by the petitioners, such as the issuance of multiple show cause 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 respondents agreed that the proper officer could undertake the exercise of rectification in accordance with law, with due intimation to the assessees.