M/S. Agro Rythu Seva Kendram vs. Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Agro Rythu Seva Kendram, filed a writ petition challenging show cause notices and orders issued by the Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes) for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019. The petitioner contended that these proceedings were duplicative, lacked signatures, were without jurisdiction, and violated provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, the Telangana GST Act, 2017, and Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The impugned notices included show cause notices dated 13.11.2021 and 30.01.2023, GST DRC-01 notices dated 13.11.2021 and 31.01.2024, and orders dated 25.04.2024 and 30.04.2024, along with GST DRC-07 proceedings dated 30.04.2024. The petitioner sought to set aside these actions due to alleged illegality and procedural non-compliance.
Held
The Court noted that the 1st Respondent had taken up the rectification of the impugned orders dated 25.04.2024 and 30.04.2024 and passed orders on 28.10.2025. In light of this development, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission from the Court to withdraw the instant Writ Petition. The Court granted this permission. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with no costs awarded. The Court also noted that any pending miscellaneous petitions stood closed as a sequel to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the show cause notices, GST DRC-01 notices, orders, and GST DRC-07 proceedings issued by the 1st Respondent for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019 are illegal, without jurisdiction, and void due to being duplicative of prior proceedings for the same period, lacking signatures, and failing to comply with Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and Telangana GST Rules, 2017, as argued by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the impugned notices and orders were issued in duplication of earlier proceedings for the same tax period, lacked necessary signatures, were issued without jurisdiction, and were contrary to the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the proceedings were void due to non-compliance with Rule 142(1A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, and Telangana Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The respondents, represented by the Special Government Pleader for State Tax, did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.
Sections Cited
Rule 142(1A)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following ORDER
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEFJUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR STNGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOH-IUDDIN Writ Petition No.26416 of 2025 Order, Mr. I(.P.Amarnath Reddy, Iearned counsel for the peEuoner Mr. Srvaroop C)orilla, learned Special Government Picader for State Tax appears for the respondents.
Petitioner has flrled the instant Writ Petition with the following praver: "to issue a Writ of Nlandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or dfuection by setting aside the impugned shorv cause notices dated 1,3.11.2021, and 30.01.2023 along with the notices in Form GST DRC-01 vide Ref.Nos.2D3611,2101,58625 dated 13.11.2021' and 2D360124049993O dated 31.1..2024 and orders of the 1" Respondent dated 25.4.2024 and 30.4.2024 along with proceedings in Form GST DRC-07 r,ide Ref.Nos.2D3604240856354 dated 30.4.2024 and 2D3604240880783 dated 30.4.2024 issued by the 1" Respondent for the I I
.) tax period lpril, 2018 to lr{arch, 2019 as they are in duplicarion of the proceedings passcd for the same tax period by the 1" Itespondenr and rvithout having anv signarures as illegal, rvithout juri iction and conrrarl to the provisions under the Central Cioods ancl Senice 'I'ax -,\ct, 2017, and the'I'elangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2011 , and roid in abscnce of non-comphance of Rule 142(1A) of the Central Goods and Scnice Tax Rules, 2011, and 'I'elangana Goods and Sen ices 'fax ltules 2017 and pass such other order or orders as thc Court mav decm fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." respondent No.1 has takcn up rhe rectifrcation of the impugned orders dated 25.04.2024 arrd 30.04.2024, and. pal;sed orders on 28.1,0.2025. Therefore, learned counsel [or: the petitioner seeks permission of the Court to wirhdraw the instant Writ Petition.
Permission is accorded and the instanr writ petition
In terms o[ the Circular dated 1,4.1,0.2025, I I \ is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn. No costs
.. ?,.. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if anv, stand closed. ' ,,/' OFFICER FOR To BS I Eli-","+iiH 5fiffi$tffi?I'
Two CD CoPtes ECIAL SA *
r' *4 i ) HIGH COURT DATED:30,11 012025 ? s o 2 B Ft8 lt:lE * :l ORDER WP.No.2Gi416 of 2025 DISMISSING THE W.P AS WITF,IDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS. -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.