M/S. Gvpr Engineers LTD vs. Deputy Commissioner (State Tax)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, a taxpayer, challenged a show cause notice dated 30.11.2024 and a consequent assessment order dated 17.02.2025, issued by the Deputy Commissioner (State Tax) for the tax period 2020-21. The petitioner argued that these actions were without jurisdiction, barred by limitation, and contrary to the CGST Act, 2017. The respondents included the Deputy Commissioner, Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, State of Telangana, and the Union of India. The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus to set aside the impugned notice and order. The procedural history involves the issuance of the show cause notice and the assessment order, which are now under challenge before the High Court.
Held
The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that the parties submitted that the show cause notice was issued on 30.11.2024, whereas it should have been issued only up to 28.11.2024. The Court acknowledged that curtains on this aspect were already drawn by a previous order of the High Court in W.P.No.9924 of 2025, dated 03.04.2025. Consequently, in view of the order passed in W.P.No.9924 of 2025, the impugned assessment order dated 17.02.2025 was set aside. The Court did not delve into the merits of the assessment itself, relying solely on the procedural ground of limitation as established by the prior High Court order. No costs were awarded.
Key Issues
1. Whether the show cause notice dated 30.11.2024, issued under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is barred by limitation? 2. Whether the consequent assessment order dated 17.02.2025 is liable to be set aside on grounds of being without jurisdiction and contrary to the scheme of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the show cause notice was issued beyond the prescribed limitation period. They relied on a previous order passed by the High Court in W.P.No.9924 of 2025, dated 03.04.2025, which purportedly drew curtains on this aspect. The petitioner argued that the impugned order should be set aside based on this precedent. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue or state respondents regarding the limitation period or the validity of the assessment order. However, they were represented by counsel.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made fh,e lbllowing: ORDER I l
) THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JuSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENT'I(A YARA WRIT PETITION No.13879 of2025 ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul) Ms. Y.Siri Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T. Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. \Vith the consent, frnallY heard.
At the outset, learned counsel for the pa-rties submit that since the. show camse notice was issued on 30.1 1.2024, whereas it should have been issued only up to 28.11.2024 and curtains on this aspect are already drawn by an order passed by this Court in W.P.No.9924 of 2025, dated 03.04.2025, the impugned order may be set aside.
In view of the order passed in W'P.No.9924 of 2025, dated O3.O4.2O25, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 17.O2.2O25. No order as to costs. I I \
2 Miscellaer:,rus petitions pending, if any, shall stan,1 closed. IV. HARI PRASAD //// DEPU[Y REGISTRAR SEI:)TION OFF]CER To, TJ 1 . Deputy rlomnttssioner (State Tax), STU-1 , Panjagutta Divisio n, 5th Floor, B- Block,-Ma,'u' F.ushal Complex, Abids, Hyde-rabad.
Commissi,:rner of Commerbial Taxes, C.i. Complex, Opf '. Ga ndhi Bhavan, Namoallv. H v ierabad- 500001 g. fne bhiet Sri,:"etary and Special Chief Secretary to Governn ent (FAC)), State Tax fr-' rartm6nt, Seiretariat, State of Telangana, Hyd(,)rabad.
The Secretanr (Finance)), North Block, Union of lndia, New Delhi-1 10 001
One CC kr lVs. Yammanuru Siri Reddy, Advocate [OPUOI
Two CC to I I t: Special GP for State Tax, High Cou( for the l:itate of Telangana, a {yderabad[OUT|
One eO t,i lS.i Gadi Praveen Klmar Deputy Solicitor Genera of lndia[OPUC] B. Two CD C cpies / L e ri il
HIGH COLIRT DATED:02,t0512025 ORDER WP.No.138r7tt of 2025 ALLOWINGi THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT CC'STS / a-a' ::''1-. .y'i , t rt'- st4 ' () ' .-(' /i i: LJ L :l 4ll][l m > \r_\ !'sr -= a\ '+ ) I rcHeO vD
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.