M/S. N Circle Exim LLP vs. Joint Commissioner
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. N Circle Exim LLP, filed a review petition challenging an order of the High Court dated 14.10.2025, which itself was based on an order-in-original dated 01.07.2025 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad GST Commissionerate. The High Court's previous order had allowed the petitioner to prefer a statutory appeal with pre-deposit, noting that the appellate authority should entertain grounds based on the material placed before the Assessing Officer, even if the reply was not signed by an authorized signatory. The petitioner's review petition argues that the submission made by the Revenue before the High Court, stating the reply was unsigned, was incorrect. The petitioner claims to have submitted a reply dated 24.06.2025, which bears the signature of a designated partner and a departmental stamp dated 01.07.2025.
Held
The High Court held that no grounds for review were made out. The Court observed that the order-in-original was passed when the petitioner's reply was not on the letterhead, nor signed or e-signed by a Director or authorized signatory. The letter dated 24.06.2025, bearing a departmental seal of 01.07.2025, was apparently not submitted before the order-in-original was passed. The Court noted that its previous order granting liberty to file an appeal was based on the understanding of the parties' stands at that time, including the Revenue's submission regarding the unsigned reply. The Court found the petitioner's attempt to seek review based on the document dated 24.06.2025 to be a vain attempt to evade pre-deposit. The Court reiterated that the observations in the operative portion of the impugned order would apply if an appeal is filed within the stipulated time. The Court did not find any error apparent on the face of the record. The review petition was disposed of with the observation that the petitioner is granted a further two weeks to file a statutory appeal with pre-deposit.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court's order dated 14.10.2025, which directed the petitioner to file a statutory appeal with pre-deposit based on the Revenue's submission that the petitioner's reply was unsigned, suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record, thereby warranting review? (Question of law and fact, concerning the admissibility of evidence and procedural fairness). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends that the submission made by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue before the High Court was factually incorrect. They assert that a reply dated 24.06.2025, signed by a designated partner and bearing a departmental stamp of 01.07.2025, was indeed submitted. This contradicts the Revenue's claim that the reply was unsigned and therefore inadmissible under Rule 26 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. Revenue's Arguments: The Revenue argues that the document at page 18, dated 24.06.2025, was not filed during the personal hearing. They maintain that the proper officer recorded in the order-in-original that the reply submitted on 11.06.2025 was not signed by an authorized signatory and lacked supporting documentary evidence, making it inadmissible under Rule 26 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The Revenue further submits that the letter dated 09.05.2025, submitted earlier, was also not on the petitioner's letterhead, nor signed or e-signed by any authorized signatory. The Revenue contends that the petitioner is attempting to evade pre-deposit by seeking a remand on untenable grounds.
Sections Cited
Rule 26
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER M/s. N Circle Exim LLP, rep. by its Partner, N. Nikhil, S/o. N.J,,lageswara Rao, aged about 38 years, iVo. 402, Minar Apartments, Deccan Towers, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER AND 1. Joint Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad GST Commissionerate, Hyderabad. ...
The Union of lndia, iep. by its Member Secretary, Ministry of Finance, North " Block, Parliament House, New Delhi. ...RESPONDENTS
Mr. Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel representing M/s. Bharadwaj Associafes appears for the review petitioner. Mr. D. Raghavendra Rao, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of lndirect laxes and Customs appears for respondent No.l.
The present review petition by the writ petitioner guesfioas the statement recorded at para 4 of the impugned order on the submrssio n of the learned Senror Standing Counsel for the Revenue. Taking into account the aforesaid s;ubmission and that such uniigned reply was taken note by the Assessrng Officer at para 1O of the order-in-original dated 01.07.2025, the writ petitioner was granted libefi to prefer an appeal with statutory pr* deposit with the obseruation that the appellate authority would entertain its grounds based upolt the material placed on record before fhe Assessing Officer such as ffs reply'though not signed by the authorized signatory or any Director of the Firm a:; fhe said reply and materials were owned by the petitioner. Two weeks timet was granted to the petitioner to prefer an appeal by impugned order dated 14.10.2025. The petitioner has preferred this review petition on 06.01.2026 questioning the impugned direction based upon the statement of the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respotndent department at para 4. 3. Leamed Senior Counsel for the review petitioner has referred to repty of the -petition'er at page tB dated 24.06.2025 which carries a signature of the designated partner of the Firm and a stamping of the department dated 01.07.2026 i.e., the date on which the order-in- original was passed. lt is submitted that the submr'ssr'on of the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue th;tt the reply was unsigned was not correct.
Learned Senror Standing Counsel for the Revenue submits that the document at page 18 datd 24.06.2025 was not filed any time during the course of personal hearing. The proper officer at para 10 of the order-in- original has recorded th,et on 12.03.2025 the tax payer submifred a letter to the undersigned and reques'fed for 45 days time mentioning the reason that their 26A5 statement to be rectified and there were excess repoding of receipts in 26A5. Again on 11.06.2025, the tax payer submitted a reply to the show cause notice ,,,d
for consideration addressing to the undersignd without atlaching any supporting documentary evidence substantiating their reply and also not signed by any authorized signatory. The tax payer was afforded the opportunity to respond. Though a reply was submittd, it was not E- signed/signed by any Director/authorized signatory of lhe Firm on their official letler head. As such, the reply is not admissible in lerms of Rule 26 of the Centra! Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.3 submils that the copy of the unsigned reply is available with the/,t. The copy of letter dald 21.06.2025 at page 18 of the review petition may have been submitted on the date on which the order-in-original was passe4 as it bears the seal of the departnent dated 01.07.2025. 5. However, the letter which was submitted earlier before the Joint Commissioner, Hyderabad, CGST Commissionerate, was dated 09.05.2025 and was not on the letter head of the petitioner. Neither was it signd nor E-signed l by any Directoi or authorized signatory. Therefore, the statement made before the writ Coud on behalf of the department was based on the instructions obtained from the record and are on the same lrnes as recorded by the proper officer in the older-in-original at para 10. Therefore, petitioner has made a vain attempt !o seek review of the matter which does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of record. Petitioner is only trying to evade the pre deposit by seeking remand of the mattet to the proper ofticer on these unlenable grounds.
We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and taken note of lhe ground that the documents relied upon by the petitioner for seeking review of the impugned order.
A p*usal of the order-in-oiginal shows that when the order-in'original was passed, though a reply was subntitted by the petitioner, il was not on the tetter head or signed or E-signed by the Director or authorized signatory of the petitioner. The letter dated 24.06.2025 bears a seal of 01.07.2O25 of the department i.e, the date on which the orderinoriginal had beerl passed. As such, this letter dated 21.06.2025 apparently was not submilted any time before the order-in-original was passed. t
wTr
Thqefore, this Court taking note of the stand of the parties gnnted liberly to the petitioner to prefer an appeal within a period of lwo weeks and directed the appellate authority to en,€rtain the grounds based upon the material placed on record before (he Assessrng Officer, such as, its reply though nol signed by the authorized signatory or any Director of the Firm as the said reply and material are owned by the petitioner. lnstead of availing it, it has preferred the review petition after considerable lapse of time.
We do not find any ground of review made out. However, petitioner is granted further two weeks time to file a statutory appeal with pre-deposit. The observations containd in the opentive podion of the impugned order shall be applicable if such appeal is filed within the time stipulated.
The rcview petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. ot- B}IAVANI SWAMY s ANT REGISTRAR //// ECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The .loint Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad GST . Comnrissionerate, Hyderabad.
The hlember Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, North Block, Parliament House, Neur Delhi. 3 4 5 6 One OC to M/S BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES, Advocate [OPUcl loPUcl ( I sR sc FoR cBrc) NDIA [OPUCI One CC to SRI. D. RAGHAVENDRA RAO One OC to DY.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF Two ()D Copies BM w
HIGH COURT DATED""04l0212026 ORDER REVIEW IA NO. 2OF 2025 IN WP.No.29630 of 2025 ,,,r.i;i';;=* t:.L 1 3 AFfl 2rJ26 P,qTCH (. e * 1t DISPOSING OF THE REVIEW PETITION o'E'b %o
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.