Mrs. Aditi Talwar vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Taxes
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Mrs. Aditi Talwar, proprietor of M/s. Aditi Talwar Photography, filed a writ petition challenging several orders issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes. These included a Rectification Order dated 15.04.2025, an order dated 28.08.2024 under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 for the period 2019-20, a Summary of Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 28.08.2024, and a Summary of Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 31.05.2024. The petitioner contended that these orders were without jurisdiction, illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the principles of natural justice and the CGST Act, primarily due to a lack of signatures. The petitioner sought to have these orders declared null and void and to stay any recovery steps.
Held
The Court held that the impugned notice and orders, including the rectification order, were unsigned. Citing a common order passed in W.P.No.21101 of 2024 & batch, dated 28.02.2025, the Court set aside these orders. The reasoning was based on the submission by both parties that the orders were unsigned, which, in light of the previous common order, rendered them invalid. The Court explicitly stated that it was disposing of the petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. Liberty was granted to the respondents to issue fresh show cause notices or orders in accordance with the law, and the limitation period would not be a hurdle for this fresh exercise. The operative direction was to set aside the impugned orders and grant liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Rectification Order dated 15.04.2025, the order dated 28.08.2024 under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, the Summary of Order dated 28.08.2024, and the Summary of Show Cause Notice dated 31.05.2024 are liable to be set aside for being without jurisdiction, illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the CGST Act, specifically due to a lack of signatures. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notices and orders, including the rectification order, were unsigned. This lack of signature rendered them invalid and non-est in law, violating principles of natural justice and the scheme of the GST Acts. The petitioner relied on a common order passed in W.P.No.21101 of 2024 & batch, dated 28.02.2025, which presumably dealt with similar issues of unsigned orders. Revenue's contention: The respondents, represented by the learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's claim regarding the unsigned orders. They submitted that the impugned notice and orders, including the rectification order, are unsigned and therefore may be set aside.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the lollowing: ORDER
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUI{A YARA WRIT PETITION No. l3olI- oI 20.25 ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul) Sri Karal Talwar, 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax submitted that since the impugned notice and orders, including the rectification order, are unsigned, the same may be set aside in view of the common order passed in W.P.No.211Ol of 2O24 & batch, dated 28.02.2025. 3. Accordingly, the impugned notice and orders, including the rectification order, are set aside. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to issue fresh show cause notice /order in accordance with law and, for undertaking this exercise afresh, the limitation will not be a hurdle for the respondents.
1 n
The Writ Pr:''ition rs disposed of without expres'sing any opinion on the me rits of the case' No order as to costs' Misceilaneo-lspetitionspending,ifany,shallstarrdclosed. T.MOHD.ISMAIL .. DEPU'TY REGISTRAR //// EECTION OFFICER
The Assistant :ommissioner of State Taxes, Jubliee ililts - ll t;i'cte'. ' pl"i'aJritibivision 5-9-279' 8th floor, B Block, Mayur Kushal rlomplex' Besid5 Chermas, Abids, Hyderabad - 500001
The Commissioner of State Taxes, 3rd Floor, C.T. Complex., flampally, Hyderabad - 510 001 3.ThePrincipatf;ecretaryRevenueDepartment(StateTax)siecretariat, Hyderabad - 500 004
Union of lndia Vinistry of Finance, Represented by ils Secretary, North Block' New Delhi - 1'0 001
One CC to Sft . KARAN TALWAR Advocate [OPUC. 6.TwoCCstoCit]forSTATETAX,HighCourtforthefjtatec,fl.elanganaat Hyderabad. [C)tJT]
One CC to Sri (iadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia [oPUC] L KKS LS CHP To, Two CD CoPitx;
HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 ORDER WP.No.13011 of 2025 DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ij. '.. \\ '-- \,. J. \ .,, /a- ,/ 'tf 9\iI , r\E SrAi (. 2i FAY 2025 ) -! at c( 2r\u4 1rS
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.