Raja Foods vs. The Assistant Commissioner (State Tax)

Facts

The petitioner, Raja Foods, represented by its proprietor Sanjay Kumar Marumamula, filed a writ petition challenging assessment orders and show cause notices issued by the Assistant Commissioner (State Tax) for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2020-21. The petitioner contended that the impugned orders, passed under Section 73 of the CGST and SGST Acts, were void due to the absence of manual or digital signatures and non-compliance with Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017, for failure to issue Form GST DRC-01A. The petitioner claimed to have become aware of these orders only in December 2025 when they were uploaded on the GSTIN portal's additional notices tab. The revenue opposed the petition on grounds of delay. The petitioner sought to quash the assessment orders or, alternatively, for a remand for fresh adjudication after a personal hearing.

Held

The Court did not delve into the merits of the case. Instead, it granted the petitioner liberty to approach the appellate authority by filing an appeal within two weeks, accompanied by a delay condonation application. The Court directed the appellate authority to consider the appeal sympathetically, taking into account the reasons provided in the delay condonation application and the fact that the petitioner had been pursuing the writ remedy. The petitioner was also granted liberty to raise all grounds, both factual and legal, before the appellate authority. The Court stipulated that if the appellate authority was satisfied with the explanation for the delay, it should entertain the appeal on its merits. During the two-week period for filing the appeal, no coercive steps were to be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned garnishee notice dated December 3, 2025. The writ petition was disposed of with this liberty granted.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable on grounds of delay, considering the petitioner became aware of the impugned orders in December 2025 and the petition was filed on February 9, 2026? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Article 226 of the Constitution of India and principles of delay and laches). 2. Whether the assessment orders passed under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act are void ab initio for lacking manual or digital signatures and for non-compliance with Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017, specifically the failure to issue Form GST DRC-01A? (Question of law, concerning Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act and Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were not brought to their notice effectively as they were merely uploaded on the GSTIN portal's additional notices tab, and they only became aware of them in December 2025. Therefore, the delay in filing the writ petition should be condoned. They also contended that the assessment orders were void due to procedural irregularities, specifically the absence of signatures and non-compliance with Rule 142(1A). Revenue's Arguments: The revenue opposed the prayer on the ground of a "huge delay" in preferring the writ petition, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited.