M/S. 24 Karat Entertainment vs. Assistant Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, M/s. Christu Krupa Broadcasting Private Limited, M/s. 24 Karat Entertainment, and another unnamed petitioner, filed writ petitions before the Telangana High Court. The petitions challenged various orders and notices issued by GST authorities. Specifically, W.P. No. 13704/2025 challenged an appellate order dated 14.02.2025 and a demand notice dated 21.04.2025. W.P. No. 13717/2025 challenged an order dated 19.09.2024 concerning the financial year 2019-2020. W.P. No. 13847/2025 challenged DRC-07 orders dated 15.02.2025 for FY 2020-21, 2022-23, and 2023-24. The common thread in these challenges was that the impugned orders and notices were allegedly unsigned, arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction.
Held
The Court, considering the submissions of both parties and the similitude of questions involved, analogously heard and decided the matters. The Court noted that the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax jointly submitted that the impugned notices and orders were unsigned. Based on this joint submission and in light of the common order passed in W.P. No. 21101 of 2024 & batch, dated 25.02.2025, the Court set aside the impugned notices and orders in all the writ petitions. The Court also ordered the revocation of any consequential bank attachments. Liberty was granted to the respondents to issue fresh show cause notices/orders in accordance with law, and it was clarified that the limitation period would not be a hurdle for the respondents in undertaking this fresh exercise. The Court explicitly stated that 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, and without jurisdiction due to being unsigned, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that the impugned orders and notices were unsigned, rendering them void ab initio. They contended that this lack of signature made the actions of the respondents illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, violating their fundamental rights and the principles of natural justice. They relied on a common order passed in W.P. No. 21101 of 2024 & batch, dated 25.02.2025, which dealt with similar issues. Revenue's contention: The learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, representing the respondents, submitted that since the impugned notices and orders were unsigned, they may be set aside in light of the common order previously passed by this Court.
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.