M/S Sree Gandhi Stores vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Shree Ganesh Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 30.05.2022 and an Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 23.11.2023, both issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Circle - Vidyanagar, Secunderabad Division, Telangana. The petitioner sought to declare these actions invalid, arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, and violative of constitutional provisions. The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. During the hearing, the parties reached a consensus. The petitioner sought permission to file an appeal before the appellate authority, to which the Special Government Pleader for State Tax had no objection.
Held
The Court noted that during the hearing, the learned counsel for the parties reached a consensus. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that they may be permitted to file an appeal before the appellate authority. The learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, appearing for the respondents, had no objection to this request. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to file an appeal before the appropriate appellate authority within thirty days from the date of the order. The Court made no order as to costs. Any pending miscellaneous petitions were also disposed of.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Show Cause Notice (SCN) and the Order in Form GST DRC-07, issued under Section 73 and relevant provisions of the CGST and TGST Act, 2017, are invalid, arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, and violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the SCN and the subsequent order were illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, violating fundamental constitutional rights. The petitioner sought to set aside these impugned actions. Revenue's Argument: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue or state. However, their lack of objection to the petitioner filing an appeal suggests an implicit acknowledgment of the petitioner's right to pursue alternative remedies.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following ORDER
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION N0.18322 of 2025 ORDER: lPer the HotL'bl.e the Ac:tittq ClLie[ Jrtslrct' Stt.1ttt1 Pctuli Srr Nagt:trdra Prasacl, ltlartlcd crlutlsel for r-llc pcl.ltioncr arld Sri Styaroop Oorilla, lcarnecl Spccral (iovcrnmenL T)loarlr:r li>r St.:ltc 'lerx. tor the respondents.
With the consent, finallY heard.
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties reached to a consensus. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits tha I he may be permitted to file an appeal before the appeilate authority. l,eartred Special Ciovernment Pleader Ior State Tax' appearing for the rcspondents, has no objection' l, Accor-clirl91r.. thc \\riL ]]eLiL'L()t1 is dismissed ilr i.,stlt t'itlq Jiilt,tt.' tL'r rltr, ,r,ritioLri,r- to filc'ltt :rppcal ,.r itlrilr t-iltrlcrl rl:tvs ir-r,llt lorl,rr llt |orl LlrL' coll-lllolent. aulhoritlr' No ordcr as lo costs Miscellaneous petitions pcnding, il alry, shall starlrl ckrsecl' L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //// sEc#ftFFICER To 1. one CC to SRI NAGENDRA PRASAD v. 49y993t9 roPUCl 2. rwo ccs to SRI swARdbE odR'iLL-n' SPECiAi cow PIEADER FoR STATETAX, IOPUC]
Two CD Capies SA PVL
HIGH COURT DATED:0810712025 ORDER WP.No.18322 of 2025 DISMISSING THE W.P tE S r,( o 6 ( ,/ * o a) L) 01 sEP 2tl6 (' o S;n I C rr,- I l. 2,D WITHOUT COSTS. )
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.