Dubbaiah Kothapalli vs. The Superintendent

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner had approached the High Court by way of a writ petition. After some arguments, the petitioner sought liberty to prefer an appeal against the Order-in-Original before the appellate authority. The petitioner also submitted that there might be some delay in approaching the appellate authority and requested that it be considered sympathetically. The Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC stated that the petitioner was free to prefer an appeal and raise all grounds. The Court, not wishing to comment on the merits of the contentions raised by the parties, granted the petitioner liberty to file an appeal within two weeks, subject to statutory pre-deposit. The Court directed the appellate authority to consider the appeal in accordance with law, taking into account that the petitioner had been pursuing writ remedy. The Court also ordered that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the garnishee notice during the two-week period for filing the appeal. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Facts

The petitioner, Dubbaiah Kothapalli, proprietor of M/s. Sri Sadguru Tyres, filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original dated February 27, 2025, a Summary of Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated April 14, 2025, and an associated order dated April 14, 2025, passed by the Superintendent, Karimnagar Rural Circle. These orders levied tax, penalty, and interest for the tax period 2020-21. The petitioner also challenged a Garnishee Notice dated October 31, 2025, issued to the State Bank of India for attachment of his bank account. The petitioner contended that the orders were barred by limitation, lacked proper signatures, and were issued without a Document Identification Number (DIN), contrary to law and a Supreme Court judgment. The petitioner only became aware of the liability upon receiving the garnishee notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Order-in-Original dated February 27, 2025, the Summary of Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated April 14, 2025, and the order dated April 14, 2025, passed by the Superintendent, Karimnagar Rural Circle, are patently barred by limitation and thus null and void ab initio, as argued by the petitioner under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017? 2. Whether the said orders levying tax and penalty for the tax period 2020-21 are invalid in the eye of law due to the absence of any physical or digital signature of the concerned officer on the order dated April 14, 2025, the Summary of Order dated April 14, 2025, and the Summary of Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated November 22, 2024, as contended by the petitioner? 3. Whether the action of the Superintendent in issuing notices and passing orders without generating a DIN for the tax period 2020-21 under the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, is contrary to Circular No. 124/47/2019-GST dated December 23, 2019, and the Supreme Court judgment in W.P.(Civil) No. 320 of 2022 dated January 18, 2022, rendering them invalid, as argued by the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were barred by limitation, lacked mandatory signatures, and were issued without DIN, violating statutory requirements and judicial pronouncements. The petitioner only learned of the liability through a garnishee notice. Respondents' Arguments: The Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC submitted that the petitioner was at liberty to prefer an appeal against the order-in-original, taking all available grounds.