BharatTaxGST

M/S.Bharadwaj Auto Tech Private Limited vs. The Superintendent

Original PDF →
WP/22623/2025HC TelanganaGSTCNR HBHC01031582202504 August 2025Bench: APARESH KUMAR SINGH,G.M. MOHIUDDIN6 pages
For Petitioner: SRI SHAIK JEELANI BASHAFor Respondent: SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR CBIC

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR TH.E^STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE TITION NO:22623 OF 2025 [ 3488 J Pump, By its ...PETITIONER PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTrcE APARESH KUMAR SINGH THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDD]N WRIT PE Between: M/s.Bharadwai Auto Tech private Limited, Sy.No.60B, Near Hp petrol il:T,1YH!'s,["?Jift?""Vfl -: jit;,[U*i,,:tt"iri"Gn!tn,:"i;; AND l The Superintendent. Karimnagar Urban Range, Medchar commissionerate Karimnagar. - vqrr r\urrve' rvrs(rurrdr vul I lI lllsslonerale, 2. The Union of India. Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, No(h Block New Delhi _1 10 001. _ ___.v!eir, vr I r d uE, ryurln utocK, 3. The Central Board of lndirect.Taxes and Customs, Rep. by its Chairman ff:['H,fl I lltTce, Depa rrment oi i{6u6n Julri;.ih Bi";i,t",it,]isEJ[ii iti, ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus.or any other appropriate writ or order or Direction declaring (1)the section 16(2)(c) read with section 41(2) ot the IGST/CGSTisGST Act 2017 is ultra vires to Article 14, Constitution of lndia; 19(1Xg), 21 , 26s and 3004 of the (2)the action of the 1St Respondent in passing the order, dated 02.02.2o2s. the summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 02.o2.2025 and the order-in-originar, dated 31 .01 .2025, Ievying rGsr/ccsr/sGST, lnterest and Penalty, for the tax period 2O2O-21 under the IGST/CGST/SGST Act 2017, barred by limitation, without any signature of the Officer concerned either physical or digital in the Order, daled 02.02.2025, the Summary of the Order, dated O2.O2.2O25 and the Summary of Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 , dated 26.11.2024 are not valid in the eye of law; (3) the action of the 1't Respondent in passing the Orders, without even serving Form GST DRC-O1A as contemplated under Rule 142(1A) of the IGST/CGST/SGST Rules 2017, is contrary to the provisions of the Acts; (4) the action of the 1't Respondent in issuing Notices and passing the Orders, without generating DIN in the Notices and Orders as per Circular No.12814712019-GST, daled 23.12.2019 and as per W.P.No.32O of 2022, dated 18.07.2022 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, are not valid and consequently set aside the Order, daled 02.02.2025, the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 02.02.2025 and the Order-in-Original, dated 31.0'l .2025 passed by the 1st Respondent as null and void. lA NO: 1 oF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Suspend the Operation of the Order, dated 02.O2.2025, the Summary of the Order in Form cST DRC-07, dated 02.O2.2O25 and the Order-in-Original, dated Z1 .O1.2025 passed by the 1't Respondent, for the tax period 2O2O-21 under the IGST/CGST/SGST Act 2017, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, as otherwise, the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 3: SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR CBIC Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

The Court made the following: ORDER

THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KIIMAR SINGH THE IION'BLE AND THE HON' SRI JI'STICE G.M.MOHII'DDIN BLE WRITPETITION No.22623 of 2o25 ORDER: Learned counsel Sri Shaik Jeelani Basha appears for the petitioner. Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs' appears for respondent Nos' 1 and 3' 2 The writ petitioner has approached this Court with the following Prayer: "For the reasons stated in the accompanying alfrdavit hled in support of the Writ Petition' it is prayed that the Honble Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or ' Order or Direction declaring: (1) the Section 16(2)(c) read with Section 41(2) of the IGST/CGST/SGST Act 2077 rs ultra vires to Article 14' 19(r)(g), 27,265 and 300A of the Constitution of India; (21 the action ofthe l"t Respondent in passing the Order' dated O2.O2.2O25, t]le Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated' O2.O2'2O25 atd the Order-in-Original' dated 31.01.2O 25, levTlrr,Lg IGST/CGST/SGST Interest and Penalty, for the tax period 2O2O-21 under the IGST/CGST/SGST Act 2077 , bared by limitation' without C t

2 any signature of the Officer concerned either physical or digital in the Order, dated O2.O2.2O25, the Summa,ry of the Order, dated O2.O2.2O25 and the Summarlr of Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01, dated 26.1 t.2O24 arc not valid in the eye of law; (3) the action of the l"t Respondent in passing Orders, without even serving Form GST DRC-O lA contemplated under Rule L42llA) of IGST/CGST/SGST Rules 2Ot7, is contrary to provisions of the Acts; the AS the the \ l4l the action of the 1", Respondent in issuing Notices and passing the Orders, without generating DIN in the Notices and Orders as per Circular No.l28/47 /2O19-GST, dated 23.72.2019 and as per W.P.No.32O of 2022, d,ated, lA.O7 .2022 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, are not va.lid arrd consequently set aside the Order dated O2.O2.2O25, the Summar5z of the Order in Form GST DRC-O7, dated O2.O2.2O25 and the Order-in-Original dated 3l.Ot.2O2S passed by the l"t Respondent as null and void and pass such other Order or C)rders, as the Honble Court may deem fit a-nd proper, in the circumstances of the case."

3.

However, we find that the petitioner has bypassed the alternative remedy of appeal under Section lO7(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 4. l,earned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 3 has pointed out several inlirmities in the pleadings

J

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, seeks permission to approach the appellate authority

6.

The learned appellate authority while considering the question of delay in preferring the appeal would keep into account that the petitioner was pursuing its remedy before this Court in this writ petition. If an appeal is frled by the petitioner within a period of one week with statutory pre- deposit, the appellate authoriLy would consider the question of delay sympatheticatly. Let it be made clear that we have not made any comments on the merits of the case. 7 The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. \ To //II . N.SRIHARI EPUW REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER qw -MP

1.

The Superin Karimnagar. tendent, Karimnagar Urban Range, Medchal Commissionerate, 2 \ly s^ecretary, Ministry of Finance, Union of rndia, North Brock, New Derhi - 1 10 001 3' The chairman, Ministrv of Finance,. Department of Revenue, centrar Board ot Indirect raxes and customs, M-,ih Bi:";i,"c;;i;rr Secretariat, New Derhi - 100 001. 4. One CC to SRt SHATK JEELANT BASHA, Advocate IOPUCI 5 one cc to sRr DoMrNrc FERNANDES, Senior standing counser for cBrc loPUcl 6 9^L. CC to SRt GAD, 'RAVEEN KU,VIAR, Deputy Soticitor Generat of tndia IoPUCI

7.

Two CD Copies

t HIGH COURT DATED:0 410812025 k B 1HE S r4 11 AUE ?W o! ri il 3i .i ,- I ORDER WP.No.22623 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT GOSTS ?,( 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.