M/S. Joint Venture Of Tata Projects LTD And Raghava Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Joint venture of Tata Projects Ltd and Raghava constructions, filed a writ petition challenging a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 30-11-2024 and an order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 27-02-2025, both issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax. The SCN and the order were issued under the provisions of the CGST/TGST Act, 2017. The petitioner sought to declare these actions as void, arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction, violating constitutional provisions. The petitioner also sought a stay on the operation of the impugned order. The respondents were the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and the State of Telangana.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 27-02-2025 is set aside. The Court found substance in the petitioner's argument that the show-cause notice was issued on 30-11-2024, and the final order was passed on 27-02-2025. This timing violated the provisions of Section 73(2) of the CGST/TGST Act, 2017, which stipulates that a show-cause notice must be issued up to three months prior to the passing of the assessment order. The Court noted that the respondents fairly admitted that the final order could not be passed within the stipulated time. Relying on a previous order of the same High Court in W.P.No.9924 of 2025 and the interpretation by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in M/s. The Cotton Corporation of India v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Audit) (FAC), State of Andhra Pradesh, Union of India, the Court concluded that the impugned assessment order could not sustain judicial scrutiny. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. No costs were awarded.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated 27-02-2025 is void, arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India, based on the timing of the show-cause notice? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the show-cause notice was issued on 30-11-2024, and the final order was passed on 27-02-2025. They contended that Section 73(2) and (10) of the CGST/TGST Act, 2017, mandate that a show-cause notice must be issued up to three months prior to the passing of the assessment order. Therefore, the order passed was beyond the statutory time limit. Revenue's Argument: The respondents, through the Special Government Pleader, fairly admitted that the final order could not be passed within the stipulated time as per Section 73(2) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. They did not present any counter-argument against the petitioner's contention regarding the timing.
Sections Cited
Section 73(2), Section 73(10)
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 JUSTTCE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA Y,ARA WRIT PETITIOIT No.15624 of 2o25 ORDER @er the Hon,ble th.e Acting Chief Justice Sujoy paul): Sri P. Venkata prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government pleader for State Tax, for the respondents.
With the consent, fina.llv heard. 3. learned counsel for the parties jointly and fairly submit that the point involved in this case is squarely covered by an order passed by this Courr in W.p.No.9924 of 2025, dated 03.O4.2025 wherein it was held as under:_ "
We find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that a combined reading of Section 73(21 and ( l0) of the Act p".-lt" the Department to issuc shou, cause notice upio three months prior to the passing of the assessm6nt order. The assessment ordcr w:rs passed on 2g.O2.2O25 and, therefore, the shon, cause notice could have been issued upto 28.1L.20'
Whereas, in the inst_ant case, it was issued on 3O. I 1.2021. Similar "i.* *." trt.., by the Andhra pradesh High Court in M/s. The Cotton Corporation of India v. Assistant Commissioner (STl (Audit) (FACI, State of Andhra pradesh, Union of India eO2S e) T]Ml 362-Andhra Pradesh High Court). In view of the statutory provisions and interpretation by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, u.,e iind substantial force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the 2 impugned assessment order cannot scrutiny. sus[ain judicial
Resultantly the impugned assessment order dated 28.02.2025 is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No COStS.,
In the instant case, the show-cause notice was issued on 3O.I1.2O24, whereas the final order is passed on 22.O2.2O25. The parties fairly admitted that the linal order could not be passed within stipulated time as per Section z3 (21 of the Goods and Services Tax Act,2OlZ.
In 'riew of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 27.02.2025 is set aside and the Writ petition is allowed. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if an;, pending, shall also stand closed \ //// . A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT 9EGISTRAR I(\r SECTION OFFICER To SA GJP '
The Assistant Commissioner of State tax, Begumpet-2 Circle' H No 6-3-789' '. 5th Floor Pavani Prestige, Ameerpet, Hyderabad 5-00 016' z i-he principal Secretary-to Government, Revenue Department (commercial Tax) State of Telanqana at Hyderabad Telangana' e one cc to sRl P.VENKATA PRASAD, Advocate [oPUC] ; o;; cc to snt swARooP ooRlLLA, SPECIAL Gow PLEADER FoR STATE TAX, Advocate [OPUC]
Two CD CoPies 1,
0 HIGH COURT DATED: 1 110612025 ORDER WP.No.15624 of 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. 7 / J I 15 205 o ( ( o 1 u /7 //, a) D,lS^a 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.