M/S. Pulsepalette PVT. LTD. vs. The State Of Telangana
Original PDF →Facts
M/s Pulsepalette Pvt Ltd (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated August 22, 2025, issued by the Principal Commissioner, Hyderabad GST Commissionerate (respondent no. 2), for cancellation of its GST registration. The petitioner argued that the charges in the notice were not specific. The petitioner had already submitted a reply on August 29, 2025, which was pending. Meanwhile, the petitioner's GST registration remained suspended, impacting its business operations and ability to file returns. The respondents contended that the petitioner had approached the court prematurely and that the allegation regarding not conducting business from the declared place of business, in contravention of Rule 21(a) of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, was specific.
Held
The Court held that it was not inclined to interfere at the stage of the show cause notice as the impugned notice was not without jurisdiction. The Court found that the second charge under Rule 21(a) of the Rules was specific to the extent that it indicated the petitioner had not been conducting its business from the declared place of business. However, the Court directed the Deputy State Tax Officer, Circle Keesara N1 Division, Hyderabad, to take a decision on the impugned show cause notice after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court disposed of the writ petition with no order as to costs.
Key Issues
1. Whether the show cause notice for cancellation of GST registration issued by the respondent no. 2 is without jurisdiction or suffers from non-specificity of charges, thereby warranting interference by this Court at the stage of a show cause notice, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? The petitioner contended that the charges leveled in the show cause notice were not specific, leading to the suspension of its GST registration and hindering its business operations. The petitioner relied on the fact that its reply to the notice was still pending. The respondents argued that the petitioner had approached the High Court prematurely. They asserted that the allegation concerning the petitioner not conducting business from its declared place of business, in contravention of Rule 21(a) of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, was specific. The respondents also submitted that the Deputy State Tax Officer would take a decision on the petitioner's reply within a specified time.
Sections Cited
Rule 21(a)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER a I
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No.3O18L of 2025 ORDER: Learned counsel Sri Shivender Kumar Sharma, representing learned counsel Sri T. Nagaraj, appears for the pctitioner. Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Ta-x, appezrrs lor the respondents.
The petitioner has assailcd the shorv camse notice for cancellation of registration in Form GST REG 17, dated 22.08.2025, on the gror-rnd that the charges leve11ed are not specific. The petitioner has alreadl' submitted a repiy on 29.08.2025, which is still pending. Meanwhile, the GST registration of the petitioner remains under suspension affecting its business arld liling ol returns etc.
Learned Special Covernmcnt Pleader for State Tax submits that the petitioner has approached this Court prematurely. The allegation ats regards not conducting
l business frc,m the declarcd place of business in contravention of Rule 2l(a\ ol tl-re Telar-rgara Goods and Services 'lax Ru1es, 2017 (hereinafter refcrred to as, "the Rules"). is specific. He, howt:ver, submits that the Deputl' State Tax Officer shall take a decision on the repl-y of the petitioner lrrithin a specified time as directed. +. Upon cc,nsideration of the submissions of the lealned counscl for the parties, we are not inclined to interfere at tl-rc stagc of s;hoq, cause notice, as the impugned notice is not \\,itllout juri iction. Moreover, the second charge under Rule 21(al of the Rules is specilic [o the (]xtent that it inclicates ttrat the petitioner hzrs not bcen conducting its business frcnr the declared place of business.
Be that as it may, the Deputy Statc Tax Officer, Circle 'l(eesara N1 Division, Hyderabacl, shall take a riecision on thc impugr-recl show cause notice after coi'rsideration ol thc rcply surbrnrtr ed by the petitioner within a period of trvo u,ceks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
To, BSR BS
The writ pctition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
JAYASREE S TANT REGISTR //// S TION OFFICER
The Principal Secretary, State Commercial Taxes, State of Telangana. retariat, Hyderabad,
The Principal Commissioner, Hyderabad G.S.T Commissronerate at 2nd Floor, GST Bhavan, Basheerbagh. Hyderabad, Telangana, 500004. 3. ttilallaiah Balaraj Bandi, Deputy Sales Tax Officer, Department Of Gst, Hyderabad, Keesara N'l .1uri iction, Hyderabad. 4 One CC to SRI T.NAGARAJ, Advocate [OPUC]
Two CCs to SPL. GP FOR STATE TAX, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]
Two CD Copies M.
H!GH COUR'T DATED: 4711012025 ORDER WP.No.3O1B1 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS 0t, \ 01 il0\l 2p5 I rlE Sf4 14. oa ($ -))J ,' a t a t G D )A t-s c T ( ,
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.