M/S. Readers Stores INDIA Private Limited vs. The State Of Telangana
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, M/s. Christu Krupa Broadcasting Private Limited, M/s. 24 Karat Entertainment, and another entity, filed writ petitions before the Telangana High Court challenging various orders and notices issued by GST authorities. The core of their grievance was that these impugned orders and demand notices were unsigned. Specifically, W.P. No. 13704 of 2025 challenged an appellate order and an adjudication order, along with a demand notice. W.P. No. 13717 of 2025 challenged an order passed for the financial year 2019-2020. W.P. No. 13847 of 2025 challenged DRC-07 orders for FY 2020-21, 2022-23, and 2023-24, which were allegedly unsigned. The petitioners sought to declare these actions void, arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction.
Held
The Court, considering the submissions of both the petitioners and the respondents, and specifically noting the submission by the learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax that the impugned notices and orders could be set aside in light of the common order passed in W.P. No. 21101 of 2024 & batch, dated 25.02.2025, allowed the writ petitions. The Court held that the impugned notices and orders in these Writ Petitions are set aside. Consequently, any bank attachments, if made, shall also stand revoked. The respondents are granted liberty to issue fresh show cause notices/orders in accordance with law, and the limitation period will not be a hurdle for them in undertaking this exercise afresh. The Court explicitly stated that the writ petitions were disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. No costs were awarded.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned orders and demand notices are void, arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, and violative of the principles of natural justice, as argued by the petitioners, due to being unsigned? 2. Whether the action of the respondents in issuing unsigned orders and notices is contrary to facts and law, as contended by the petitioners? The petitioners argued that the unsigned nature of the impugned orders and notices rendered them void ab initio, arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction, violating their fundamental rights and principles of natural justice. They relied on a common order passed by the High Court in W.P. No. 21101 of 2024 & batch, dated 25.02.2025, which dealt with similar issues of unsigned notices and orders. The respondents, represented by the learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, did not contest this point and submitted that the impugned notices and orders could be set aside in light of the aforementioned common order.
Sections Cited
DRC-07
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following COMMON ORDER
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF WSTICE SUJOY PAUL . AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION Nos.137o,4, t37t7 and 13847 of2o25 COMMON ORDER: (per the Hon,bte the Acting ChieJ.Justice Sujog paut) Learned counsel Sri p.Venkat prasad, Sri Eppa Rakesh Reddy and Sri S.V.prarav Ram, for the petitioners and Sri T. Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant Government pleader representing Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for State Tax.
Regard being had to the similitude of the questions involved, on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are analogously heard and decided by this common order.
Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax submitted that since the impugned notice(s) and order(s) are unsigned, the same may be set aside i, .ii.* of the common order passed in W.p.No.21 lO I of 2024 &, batch, dated 25.02.2025. 4. Accordingly, the impugned notice(s) and order(s) in these i I Writ Petitions are set aside. The consequential bank I
2 attachment(s), if any, shall also stand revoked' Liberty is reserved to the respondents to issue fresh show cause notice(s)/ order(s) in accordance with law and, for undertaking this exercise afresh, the limitation will not be a hurdle for the respondents'
The Writ Petitions are disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.'No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. A. PRATHIMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //rRUE coPY// (k SECH6N OFFICER to ',. ,n" Principal Secretary, Commercial Taxes' Secretariat' State of Telangana , ?tt:'3""fr,llttioner of the commercial raxes Department' -Telangana state' - Corrn"r"irt taxes Comptex, Nampally' Hyderabad-500 001'
The Assistant co"l"i5n? iiii ' s-02'a ro 281' 9th floor' c-Block' Mavur Kushal compler, cr"j"r"J.v, Abids, Nampally, Hyderabad, Telangana- o ?flo"oSlo*, Commissioner (ST)' STUl (FAc)' 5-s-2-73 Io 281' 4th floor' C- Block, Mayur t<usnat coripLx"c'*i"iow' Abids' Nampalty' Hyderabad' Telanoana-500001 s o"nl'i;'i; iar s v pnar'rAv RAM' Advocate [g!u^cl 6. one cc to SRI swARoi#bbHILin' r-LAnr'rieD sPLclAL G P FoR srArE TAX, Advocate IOPUCI z. cj""'cC i" snr b.vENxer PRASAD' Advocate (oPUC) ;. o;; cc i" sar EPPA RAKESH REDDY' Advocate (oPUC) e. one cc to sRlGADIPtqv??lr kwni oEpurvsoltitron cexeRel OF lNDlA, Advocate (OPUC)
Two CD CoPies SA GJP
{ HIGH COURT DATED:1210612025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos-1 3704, 13717 AND 13847 of 2025 WITHOUT COSTS. .,4 4,4 I t4: 1HE S14 R k I t) t '+ 20 ilE m (f,( 2 o a -t l-t6 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS // Z,/1 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.