E.Ravi Kiran Reddy And 25 Others vs. State Of Telangana And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, M/s. Vedaspace Constructions Pvt. Ltd., M/s. JAR Mobility Solutions, and M/s. Sai Manikanta Traders, filed writ petitions before the Telangana High Court challenging show cause notices and consequential orders issued by various State Tax authorities under the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The tax periods involved include April 2019 to March 2020 and 2020-21. The petitioners also challenged garnishee notices attaching their bank accounts. The core of the challenge in these petitions, as presented to the Court, was that the impugned notices and orders were unsigned, rendering them void and illegal. The respondents are the Assistant Commissioners (State Tax) and the State of Telangana.
Held
The Court held that the impugned notices and orders, being unsigned, were liable to be set aside. This decision was based on the joint submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, who agreed that the unsigned notices and orders should be annulled in light of a previous common order passed by the High Court in a similar batch of cases (W.P.No.21101 of 2024 & batch, dated 28.02.2025). Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned notices and orders. Any consequential bank attachments were also revoked. The Court explicitly reserved liberty for the respondents to issue fresh show cause notices/orders in accordance with the law, stating that the limitation period would not be a hurdle for this fresh exercise. The Court made it clear that it was disposing of the writ petitions without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
Key Issues
1. Whether the show cause notices and consequential orders issued by the State Tax authorities, which are alleged to be unsigned, are void, arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the principles of natural justice and constitutional provisions (Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265)? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that the impugned notices and orders were unsigned, making them non-est in the eyes of law and thus void ab initio. They argued that such unsigned documents violate the principles of natural justice and constitutional rights, including the right to carry on business. In one petition, it was also argued that the orders were barred by limitation and that Form GST DRC-01A was not issued as contemplated under Rule 142(1A), and that a Document Identification Number (DIN) was not generated, contrary to Circular No. 128/47/2011-GST and Supreme Court judgments. Revenue's arguments: The learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax submitted that since the impugned notices and orders were unsigned, they may be set aside in view of a common order passed in a previous batch of writ petitions.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Rule 142(1A)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER
---- ':rr ;,{}c*,€=t 7 / \ t \ \ THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION Nos. t79o4 18O1O and 18O11 of2025 COMMON ORDER: (Per the Hon'bte the Acting Chief ,Iustice Sujog paul) Learned counsel Sri A.V.Raghu Ram, Sri Mohammed Rafi and Sri V.Veeresham for the petitioners and Sri Swaroop Oorilla, Iearned 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 in vieu, of the common order passed in W.p.No.211O1 of 2024 &, batch, dated2B.O2.2O25. 4. Accordingly, the impugned notice(s) and order(s) in these Writ Petitions are set aside. The consequential bank attachment(s), if any, shall a,lso stand revoked. Liberty is reserved I I
2 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, sha1l also stald closed. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Assistant Commissioner (State Tax), Jubilee lls lll Circle, Punjagutta, Telangana.
The Frincipal Secretary,(Revenue) CG Department' Telangana' Secretariat Buildings, State of Telangana, Hyderabad' g. ine n"-siitunt Commissioner (ST), Hydernagar-ll Circle' Hyderabad'
The chairman, Ministry of Finance, beparthent of Revenue, central Board of lndirectTaxesandCustoms,NorthBlock,Centralsecretariat,NewDelhi-100 001. s. i6" state Tax Officer, Keesara_ 1 Circle, IVlalkajgiri Sth Floor, c.T. complex, Nampally, HYderabad - 500 001
The'Principil Secretary to Government Revenue Department (Commercial Tax), State of Telangana, Hyderabad' Telangana z. ffre"secretary, Unio-n of inaia, Ministry of Fiiance' North Block' New Delhi-1 10 001 B. One CC to SRI V.VEERESHAM' Advocate IOPUC]
One CC to SRI A.V.RAGHU RAM, Advocate lOPUCl 10.One CC to SRI MOHAMMED RAFI, Advocate' [OPUC] ii.O"" CC to SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPL G'P for State Tax' [OPUC] 12.Two CD CoPies. BSK LS
HIGH COURT DATED:0410712025 -1-+--+': '.-. -z-'-, i ltl s; -,' oD'' ,)_\ 2 0 sEP 2025 (j a' .- ;;,- r "i': ,-/2' COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.17904,18010 & 18011 ot 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS 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.