M/S. Christu Krupa Broadcasting Private Limited vs. Appeallate Joint Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, M/s. Christu Krupa Broadcasting Private Limited, M/s. 24 Karat Entertainment, and another entity (collectively referred to as petitioners), filed writ petitions before the Telangana High Court. The petitions challenged various orders and notices issued by GST authorities. Specifically, W.P. No. 13704 of 2025 challenged an appellate order dated 14.02.2025 and an adjudication order dated 30.12.2023, along with a demand notice dated 21.04.2025. W.P. No. 13717 of 2025 challenged an order dated 19.09.2024 for the financial year 2019-2020. W.P. No. 13847 of 2025 challenged orders issued via DRC-07 for FY 2020-21, 2022-23, and 2023-24, all dated 15.02.2025. The common thread in these challenges was the assertion that the impugned orders and notices were void, arbitrary, illegal, and violative of constitutional provisions and principles of natural justice.
Held
The Court held that the impugned notices and orders in all the writ petitions were to be set aside. This decision was based on the joint submission of the learned counsel for the parties, acknowledging the similitude of the questions involved and the concession made by the revenue. The Court noted that the petitioners' primary contention was that the impugned notices and orders were unsigned, rendering them void. The revenue, through the learned Special Government Pleader, agreed that the unsigned notices and orders should be set aside. Consequently, any consequential bank attachments, if made, were also revoked. The Court explicitly reserved liberty for the respondents to issue fresh show cause notices or orders in accordance with the law, stating that the limitation period would not be a hurdle for this fresh exercise. The Writ Petitions were disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned orders and notices issued by the GST authorities are void, 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, as contended by the petitioners? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the impugned orders and notices were fundamentally flawed because they were unsigned. They contended that unsigned documents are void ab initio, lack legal sanctity, and therefore cannot form the basis for any demand or action by the revenue authorities. They relied on a previous 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. Revenue's Arguments: The learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, representing the respondents, did not contest the petitioners' submissions regarding the unsigned nature of the impugned orders and notices. Instead, they conceded that if the notices and orders were indeed unsigned, they could be set aside.
Sections Cited
Article 14, Article 19(1)(g), Article 265, Article 300A
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.