M/S. Secunderabad Printed Cartons Limited. vs. The Union Of INDIA

WP/25751/2025HC TelanganaGSTCNR HBHC01050693202509 September 2025Bench: APARESH KUMAR SINGH,G.M. MOHIUDDIN6 pages

For Petitioner: SRI S.V. PRANAV RAMFor Respondent: sRr DoMrNrc FERNANDEs, sr.sc FoR cBrc

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

M/s. Secunderabad Printed Cartons Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging an order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 03.09.2024, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax. The petitioner contended that the order was illegal, arbitrary, barred by limitation, and passed without proper physical or digital signature. The order pertained to the tax period 2019-20. The petitioner sought to declare the impugned order invalid and sought interim relief to restrain recovery of the confirmed demands. The respondents were the Union of India, the Principal Commissioner of Customs and Central Tax, and the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax.

Held

The Court noted that the issue of limitation raised by the petitioner was no longer res integra, as it was covered by a Division Bench judgment of the High Court in W.P.No. 1154 of 2024 & batch, dated 02.01.2025, which in turn followed the Apex Court's ratio in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020. Consequently, the Court found that the plea of limitation raised by the petitioner did not stand. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought liberty to approach the appellate authority and requested that the appeal be condoned for delay, as the petitioner was pursuing its remedy before the High Court. Taking these circumstances into account, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to prefer an appeal within two weeks from the date of the order. The appellate authority was directed to consider the appeal in accordance with law, without being persuaded by any delay in approaching it. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 03.09.2024, passed for the tax period 2019-20, is barred by limitation, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of constitutional provisions, as contended by the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the order was passed beyond the prescribed period of three years from the relevant date for the tax period 2019-20, making it barred by limitation. The petitioner also raised grounds of illegality, arbitrariness, and violation of constitutional rights. The respondents, through their counsel, submitted that the issue of limitation is covered by a Division Bench judgment of the High Court in W.P.No. 1154 of 2024 & batch, dated 02.01.2025, which followed the Apex Court's ratio in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020.

Sections Cited

CGST Act, 2017

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

t l& * '*.+ .t * * '; ; ,9 4 ,\ * & + [ 3488 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION NO: 25751 OF 2025 Between: M/s. Secunderabad Printed Cartons Limited., represented by its lt/anaging Director Koppala Lalit Aditya, Plot No. 41lA, IDA Phase-V, Patancheru, Hyderabad, Sangareddy, Telangana, 50231 9. ..PETITIONER AND 1 The Union of lndia, Represented by rts Secretary, Department of Revenue, [/inistry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi- 11000. The Principal Commissioner of Customs and Central Tax, Medchal GST Commissionerate, lll Floor, Medchal GST Bhavan, 11-4-64918, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad - 500 004. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Kukatpally GST Division, Lords Court Building, Plot No. 80 and Bl, Survey No, 166, Near South lndia Shopping Mall, Ushamullapudi Road, A.S. Raju Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 500 072. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Order, more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, declaring the impugned order in Form GST DRC-07 vide Reference No ZD3609240048B9U dated 03.09.2024, as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, barred by Limitation and without signing the said document either physically or digitally and violative of Articles 19(1)(g) and 3004 of the lndian Constitution. t ',i,+ & t I t, I I $ a * lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 1s1 cpc praying that in the c rcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to grant interim relief to restrain the Respondents from initiating any action to recover the dentands confirmed under the Order in Frrrm GST DRC _ 07 Reference No. 2D360924004889U dated 03-09,2024 Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S.V. PRANAV RAM Counsel for the Respondent No.i : Deputy Solicitor General of lndia counsel for the Respondent No.2&3 :sRr DoMrNrc FERNANDEs, sr.sc FoR cBrc The Court made the following: OROER * + s, + & w THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KI'MAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No.2575L of 2O2S

ORDER: Mr. S.V.Pranav Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes ar-rd Customs (CBIC) appears for respondent Nos.2 and 3

Impugned order in original dated 23.08.2024 is under challenge on the ground that it has been passed beyond the prescribed period of three years from the reievant date for the tax period 2Ol9-2O.

Learned Senior Star-rding Counsel for CBIC submits that the issue is covered by Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.P.No..1 i54 of 2024 & batch dated 02.OI.2025 following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020, specifically the order dated 10.O1.2022 paragraph IV thereof.

Since the issue is no longer res integra, the plea of limitation raised by the petitioner does not stald. :

Learrred counsel for the petitioner, therefore, seeks liberty tcr approach tl-re appellate authority. He prays that the appeal may be dela.r,ed as petitioner was pursuing irs remedy before this Court. t'. Taking inLo note the aforesaid facts and circumstalces, in case the petitioner prefers arr appeal q,ithin a period of tu,o u.eeks from rocla_v', the appellate authoritv lvould consider the appe.rl, in a<:cordalce in ith iali , wrthout bein;1 persuaded bv dc1a1,, if an._r,, in approaching it.

The V/rit Petition is, accordingll,, disposerl of. Horvever, there shal1 lte no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pencline, if ar ry, shall stand closed. SO/-U. SUDHA ASIJISTANT REGISTRAR //// SECTION OFFICER *. I To, 1 il3irtB?;:[: K.DW.8A fiI?il?,r-even ue, rv in i s try of Fi n a n ce, U n io n of I nd i a, The Princip::l Commissione ;;gu,",.l,.;65";liir"*i,"J3Hl'is,"Bfl 3BT'?',lf ;#,"diilf n'"1,, s5;p$U fi.:','f 't S: [%il '#i ],", ffi ]id :ilf,h A1;:n. 4 2 a 3 I :

One CC to SRI S.V. PRANAV RAM, Advocate [OpUC] 5 .ne cc to Deputv SoricitorGenerar of rndia, High court tor the State of Telangana at Hyd'erabad. t6pUCi- vi r.vru' I rrvr I .- One CC to SRI DOMINtC FERNANDES, Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC loPUCl + i * tl 7 Two CD Copies BSK BS 4i.. w i

* { t 4 HIGH COURT DATED:0910912025 ORDER WP.No.25751 ot ZO2S 1* .F ,/,/^?1\c: ,-.\" .-.- t I 2 3 0Cl 2gg l' \. r. {' / I 4 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS + 4 {r +. \n \l 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.