M/S. Surender Reddy Kasireddy vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax

WP/10852/2025HC TelanganaGSTCNR HBHC01021739202525 April 2025Bench: SUJOY PAUL,RENUKA YARA11 pages

For Petitioner: SRI M' NAGA DEEPAK

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

Multiple petitioners, including M/s. Prosafe Biologicals LLP, filed writ petitions before the High Court challenging orders and notices issued by various State Tax authorities. The core of the challenge in these petitions, spanning tax periods like 2020-21, 2018-19, and 2019-20, was that the impugned orders and show cause notices were not signed, either physically or digitally, as required by law. Petitioners argued that this lack of signature rendered the documents invalid. The procedural history indicates that these matters were heard analogously due to the similarity of issues involved. The petitioners sought a declaration that the orders and notices were void, illegal, and liable to be set aside, and also sought interim relief to suspend their operation.

Held

The High Court, considering the similitude of the questions involved and upon the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, heard the matters analogously. The Court noted that the learned counsel for the petitioners and 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 the common order passed in W.P. No. 21101 of 2024, dated 29.02.2025. Consequently, the Court held that the impugned notices and orders in these writ petitions are set aside. Any bank attachment(s) made pursuant to these orders shall also stand revoked. The Court granted liberty to the respondents to issue fresh show cause notices/orders in accordance with law, and the period of limitation will not be a hurdle for the respondents for undertaking this exercise afresh. The Court explicitly stated that the writ petitions are disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders and show cause notices issued by the State Tax authorities are valid in law, given the alleged absence of physical or digital signatures, as contemplated under Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, and in light of the scheme of the GST Acts? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that the impugned orders and notices were invalid because they lacked the mandatory physical or digital signatures required by Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017. They relied on a common order passed by the High Court in W.P. No. 21101 of 2024, dated 29.02.2025, which presumably dealt with similar issues of unsigned documents. They contended that the absence of signatures made the proceedings void and non-est in the eyes of law. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state tax authorities in response to the issue of unsigned documents. However, the fact that they were represented indicates their participation in the proceedings.

Sections Cited

Rule 26(3), Section 73, Section 79(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

1 H r c H co u Rr *i JX"HI6T,=',35 ::h3}'Sfl i$ Ar HYD E RABAD F Rr DAY, lflEo#fllill5H"?ftY.iF 0E "' [ 3446 ] and 10929 of 2o25 PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE ACTTNG CHIEF JUSTICE-SUJOY PAUL rHE H.N'BLE t*t' f,}S''tt RENUKAYARA WRIT PETITloN Nos .10799 1082',|. 10852 10872 PETITIO N NO: 10 (1 ) the action of the the Summary of the Proceedings 799 0 2025 F Between: rui1+ffiU*$ilf.flgililfll"*.{lB"Jl;'l;]8;x8i""3b$?u'oJ;'l'3r1r WRIT AND , H?",.a'jfl :H,,,9fl [T] "",':,:%r r(:J I?; " 3',?,r J58 033.* *''sio n er state rax', 2. The Assistant Commissioner State Tax' Begumpet Division' Begumpet-2 ' ffi :#ffi iB *rr**"n*: JJ"[i' Iii: 33f; l"'::'';?siu R eve n u e ( cr) d The Union of lndia' Rep by its Secretary' Ministry of Finance' North Block' ' ' New Delhi - 'l 10 001 ' 'm$"Xt,,6i;',s:utli:L''"1H'3l3"lti'iil'ai"T-"''""''Y.n*X{ Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction declaring: l"tRespondent in passing the Order' dated 30 05'2024' the Order in Form GST DRC-07' dated 30'05 2024 and , dated 29.05.204, levying SGST/CGST' for the tax period 2 2020-11 urler the SGST/CGST Act 2017, witi{)ut any signature of the Officer c rncerned either physical or digital in the summ;r, cr the order, dated 30/05/2024 "rd sh:l,i'1;:'r::tiT:ii7r::r: ijl,il.:, 1 dated 17.os.2024 and Attachrrrenl to DRC-01, dated ,Jtv\)tzu:4 ?re not valid in the eye of law; (2) the actt6 I :f the 'l st Respondent in passing tt) l ,:)rde s, without even issuing Frrrr GST DRC_0.1A as contemplatud ,.,t"r. Ruk, .142(1A) of the SGST/CrC S't Rules 2017, is contrary to the provisic,nsi of ti e Acts. (3) the action o1 :lre 1st Respondent in issuing summEl.y of show cause Notice dated 1t.')5.:1a24 and passing the summary Orderrs 30.C5. 2024, without generati'r( t-''rr in the Notices and orders as per c:rrcLrrar r, o.12gr47r201g_ GST, date.J :l) 12.2O1Sand as per W.p.No.320 of it[|t..a. dz.ted 18.07.2022 of the H:r 'frk: Supreme Court, are not valid and r;onr;eqL en y set aside the Orde,r. cjat:d 30.05.2024, the Summary of tirr;11,1ds1 in Form GST DRC-O7, d rtr:rj 30.05.2024 and proceedings, datec 29t.05 2O!4passed by the 1St Rer;pr;1js6[ as null and void. IANO:1O F 202,5 Petition unrler S;et in the affidavit r,re i ,. su 151 cPC praying that in th€' cir'oumritances stated rpport of the petition, the High Court rnay be pleased to suspend the operatic r cf the Order, dated 30.05.2024, the Siurr mar,r of the Order in Form GST DRC'o z cated 30 05.20 24 and the proceedirrgs, dak d 29.o5.2024 passed by the s1 Respondent, for the rax petiod 2ai,.o-2 under the sGST/CGST Act 2i')1/' pending disposar of the above writ rretition. :s othenvise, the Petitioner will b: pu. to severe loss and hardship. Counsel for the perr:itior,er: SRI VENKATRAM REDDY MAN-[ UR Counset for the Rer;prnd":rl:ryg,f to 3: SRt CHAITANYA KtRAr,\t, ACiI' REPRESENTING SFI SWAROOP OORILLA. ISPEICIAL GOVERNMENT'PICEOEN FOR STATE TAX Counsel for the Resrpond"-1tl-o.4, SRI cADl PRAVEEN KUMTAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL Or, Ir.,l6IA J : l,: 3:x.tsfl 3t:?""["sEi.ltll[Bl-T|??xtJH?5f Txi}3'^',iDcUsToMs TION NO: 108210F 025 2 wRl and are to be set-aside IA NO:1OF 2025 TPETI "ui"g*mrur"+.,its-Hj!,'#',ffi"E#iitnTlif:tu-,ug j:r*ilfi 5ooo72 "'PETlrloNER AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner (GST) (ST)' Hyder Nagar-lll Circle' Hyderabad ' Rural Division' I ., ..^- Tho qtate GST Department' State GST ,H".fi i.Ti$:?31F,l"l'*3fl?'il:S#e3F'I8nii'i,*i.iHvaerauad " The State of Telangana' Rep by its Principal Secretary' Revenue (CT) ' o""PuiiiLnt' HYderabad' ' Pil':[":l i#11 J,:'"{'$#lll'iit'fJ3fli Department " - -}T;J*JI* Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ' or order or direction declaring That the impugned Order vide reference No' 2D36O4240644874 dl' 26'04'2024 and Show cause notice vide reference No' 2D660124O45763H dt' 31'O1 '2024 cannot be sustained as the impugned Order and Show cause notice are unsigned ie' was neither digitally signed nor verified through e-signature as envisagedi specified under rule 26(3) of CGST rules' 2017 petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the operation .of the Order in Form GST DRC-07 vide reference No.2D3604240 644874 dl' 26'04'2024 issued by the '1't Respondent' passed for the tax period 2018-19 under the provisions of the Act' Counsel for the Petitionerr SRI JAI KISHAN SOLANKI 4 Counsel for the Respondt AG p R#"RISJ*,;,i.nr*, cHArrAN).,q KrRA N, fiRI SWAROOP OORILLA. si pEcrAL GovERNMENi.,p leaoen f :oR s r/r\TE TAx Counsel for th e Res oonole #Jt1i, ssl 8f,,J I Btx,?il, ftsT i,[,,, ^ WRIT PETITIONN O: 10852oF 202.5 Between: M/s. Surender Fl Years, Address - 500079 E'f :,Iii]5,""11{riis"t?ii,,?::,,*".i?,r"ff :ii*;i?:ff :+sft ::: ' #EAtt;:]tnt rlrmmissioner of state Tax, saroor N;r,]ar - ilr, Saroor Nagar, 2. Commissi ;r er r f - N;ffiily,irr.|ro;t6"1['353a1 raxes, State or rerzrrsara ].r comprex, 3 Rt^19_ot t.ea.ctrna, lhlqugh principat Secru Departmerrl c j.imercrat rax), Hyderabao, t.ilflUr13 3oVernr rent Revenue ,..RE SPONDENTS Petition urrd,lr ,11;.1u 226 of the Constitution of lndia ,.ayit g that in the circumstances slalec in the affidavit fired therewith, the Hir3h c rurt may be preased to pass ir vrrt .rder or direction, more particurarry irr the na ture of a writ of mandamus de rc a rirrr; the order along with its attachrrrerrt pa ;sed by the Respondent No. . rrls,'3 of the CGST Act dated 2T_O4_201t4 ir Forn GST DRC 07 bearing Refere n .:e l,l: 2D3604 24O6B1B2G and also dec itr€, the ihow Cause Notice arong wilh its attachment in Form No. DRC-.1 bearir rg Ref No. 2D36O622062.108 I dat_.J 12_06_2022 passed by the Resp<;rdent ,ro. 1 for the Financial year2OlB 1_t as being void, illegal, arbitrary, violatiye rcf Arl cles 14, 19, 21 and 265 of the (.jo t;litution of India, violative of principh..s of na ural justice, and without authorit\ o, lirw and consequenfly set aside the silme AND ..PETITIONER lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition und3r Slition 151 CPC praying that in the circ,ums,tan(es stated in the affidavit filed ir : ur port of the petition, the High Court ma)'be ple rsed to stay all further action i rr lurl rg collection of tax pursuant to the Orcler a':ng with its 5 attachmentunderForm,No.::";iJ""ili;:ff lT)',":l'i:fi:::l;:: daled 27-o4-2024 dated P 2018-19. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M' NAGA DEEPAK Counsel for the Re1Sf,dents: SRI CHAITANYA KIRAN' :r*$t5'3fHdi"tm'p r-E ro e n F o R srArE r Ax wRtTPETlTlON NO: 108720F202s Between: . -41^^.t z-12t1125, Jyothi Nagar, Narapally' i;r:t:r'*q**5*Tgrl['$aving orrice at7-32t1 "'PErrrtoNER o*lt*''r*S"fi ili,i'n [:'"?L:l'ffi ':tr^Uil"X3"'i]lf]"J#t':il" ' ;x:"ffiTf:"'""" l;; "*""' 3rd Floor' cr' complex' Nampallv' 'ffi ;:ilii*"*:,3[H,s":+r"ff#t'ff si:t"x'?gx'1"[:fiiltJ:ffi +T''lJ?: 'iJ?i?""+p,'*t"?:.#;I"r'.*"rXflE5's"d8isecretaryRevenueDepadment ' H:fb:IllgflyJtil o'on'n'"' Represented bv its secretary' ):H:I PetitionunderArticle226ottheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ' Order or direction particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring (i) rmpugned order dated 27.O4.2[24along with FORM GST DRC-07 dated 27 '04'2024 beating Reference No. 2D3604240669046 issued by the Respondent No. 1 under section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 for the. period 2018-19 and (ii) Show Cause Notice issued in DRC-01 dated 07 06'2 O22 (iti) Notice issued in FORM GST DRC - 13 dated Og.Ol .2ozsissued by the Commercial Taxes Department under Section 79(1) of the .GST Ac., 2017 , as nuil and void ' iilegar' in vioration of principres of natural 6 Justice, without iuri; liction as it is passed without au law on accourrr rf t1e tack ., =,^^-";::^':.,:"no:t autho-ity .f Iarz, and non-est in of justice and ;1 .1,;;., and ir signatures either physically rr c'igitally in the interest r accordance with the scheme : f the G{;T Acts. IA OF NO:1 2025 petition yr dr:i. Secr the affidavit riteo n r,,,pp.t n 151 cPc praying that in the cir,:u6s,s116u" stated in (i) the impug,re,i or'n ot'nu petition' the High court ner1, ou o,"u."o ,o".,u, ;:ll^lx::,::[i:: .#::,,7_';:,.,i be,,rni,;;;;;""" _" by the Respono.,,,. ,rrrr"'ds recovery or ns rz'rJl!'';i::il';:l,ffi bankattachmenl norc( ;il::jff:usned orders daterd 27.o2 2024and the Counsel for the pr:ti,:ioner: SRI KARAN TALWAR Counsel for the Rersprtnd o n o ^HilsJri,ft oo, sRr cHArrANyA KIRAN SIII SWAROOP OORILLA. SI)ECIAL GOVERNMENT bIENOCN FOFI STATT TAX Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: _ Counsel for the Resprnd11tl9.5, _SRl cADt PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEpury solrcrroR GENERAL or= mlbre WRIT PETITION NO:10929 OF 2025 Between: AND PROSAFE BtOLO,l,(lr, _i LLp, Rep. by its partner, Froor. sanatan-a Et;.;'ii,*t N. ;: Hi,+,r"r;;r#, flll"t#:,,:it:i3lEX;f-03 o" .,.F'ETITIONER , Iii.3Br,J.,Jflrt c,)irmissioner, (GST) (sT) Hydersuda_ rrshok Nasar Circte, 2. The Commir;s oner of State Tax, The State GST Department, State GST Commissionr..r rJlf ce. Nampaltv, opp. to 6J,iinia'h"rrn, tyderat ad. 3. The State c,f Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secre,laqT Re venue (cr) Department, l-rvd :' lbad. 4. Union of lndia Tl^r:ugh Joint Secretary, Department of lle'venut, Ministry of ' Finance, No'ti B or;k, New Delhi-1 '10001 ...RES,ONDENTS 1 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution"of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in tn"'"ff""'tt filed therewith' the High Court may be oleased to issue Writ of *l"O"u' or any other appropriate writ' or order or direction declaring: ";;"; impugned order vide reference No' ZD36O824O77000Z dt' 24'08'2,J24and Show cause notice vide reference No' 2O360524o76243E dt' 31 ;;ZOz+ tunnot be sustained as the impugned Order and Show cause notice "" '"1'*"0 ie' was neither digitally signed nor verified through e-signature ut "n*t"n"O'tpecif ied under rule ZO(g) ot CGST rules' 2017 and are to be set-aside' IA No: 1 oF2o25

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER that in the circumstances stated in Petition under Section 151 CPC Prayrng he High Court may be Pleased to the affidavit filed in support of the Petition' t GST DRC-07 vide reference No susPend the operation of the Order in Form he 1st ResPondent' Passed for the 2D3608240979002 dt. 24'OB'2o24 issued bY t Act, and Pass such other order or tax Period 20'19-20 under the Provisions of the orders as this Honble High Court may deem fit and ProPer in the circumstances of the case as othervvise' the Petitioner will be Put to severe loss and hardshiP Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI JAI KISHAN SOLANKI c o u ns e I f o r th e Res p;; t";|'-I3 l,li, i'Gs R: c H ATTANYA Kr RAN' : f l:Xttt'.I=83f; ';''hfu '-= ^D E R Fo R srAr E rAx counserf ortheRespont"#Jl"+35liir"JlH"riJ^[',#ifu ,o I

THE HC)N'BLE THE A( 'rlrE HoN'BL" *i;xIEF wsrICE 'suJoY PAUL iMT. JUSTICE RENITKA yARr{ PETITION Nos.to799 1082t aas_z, l0872 10929 of2o25 aad COMMQN_rl Lea. r,t : Sri Jai I. ir;h: for the pr: irir Goverltrne r1 representing Sri Swaroop Oo -illa. learned Special Co..e.r.ment pleader appearing for State .j-ax

Reg,rr ,C lrr:rng had to the similitude of the qLrr:str, rns invojved, on the.joinr r,rluest of learned counsel for the [)art.ies_ the matters are alalogo.r,.ly heard and decided by this comrnon o;- ler.

Lear,tld r ounsel for the petitioners ar rl leat.. tecl Special Governmen l )1,:arier for State Tax submittr,,l ;_hart since the eD-E& (perthe Hon,bte the Acting Cl rc_f tr.rstiL e Sujog paul) : counsel Sri Venkatrarrr Rec dy Mantur, tr Solanki, Sri M.Naga Deepak arrd tlri (aran Talwar, )1ers arrd Sri T. Chaitanya Kirar_i, lear red Assistant rt I'leader \ I tmpugned n r1. c(r(s) and order(s) are unsigned, ther sa ne may be set aside irr rir:,r of the common order passed i. W.p,to.211O1 of 2024 8r bar<: r, rlrted 2g.02.2025. 4 . Accolc l.n g 1 r', the impugned notice(s) ani orderi s) in these cclls(lqtle :rti a'1 bank Writ Peti ti rr: s' are set aside ' The wRrl_ I I

2 i I I It ti ll i I attachrnent(s) ' if any ' shal1 also stand revoked' Libe to the respond'ents to issue fresh show cause notic accordance with law and' for undertaking this exer limitation will not be a hurdle for the respondents' rtY is reserved e(s)/ order(s) in cise aJresh' the are disPosed of without expressing anY No costs The Writ Petitions opinion on the merits of the case closed. To, 5 , Il?",Hfl :11,,9,3&Tl :1':,:%i r(3[l3a "3'ft 'llao:f "' *i o ne r state r ax' o Thp Assistant commissioner State Tax' Begumpet Division' Begumpet-2 ' ciiir" Hyderabad' /r'T\ ncnartment' state of Telangana' Dr' ';t'^'ilsJa,?,"3:?11?d,5i'3xH'"05?lll'J"'[Tol'

The Secretary, Ministry of Finance' Union of lndia' North Block' New Delhi - 'il;,'"d*'st'J?.,"jIi'il:?P8B1[:3:li,:rs:??J':,,ff Tri""'tfl ll 100 001

The Assistant Commissioner (GST) (ST)' Hyder Nagar-lll Circle' Hyderabad Rural Division, I G' ' IH,:LXlS:?' 31F,:":k :11l?,,1:6,l li" BSe f' 3['8"? ?]SS$b'?" u " t lJ;:"lil3l-n.81[""t*1ft"?"E3,[[,"iJoiJ',*""nue' Ministry or Finance' Union or 9. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax' Saroor Nagar - lll' Saroor Nagar' Interlocutory apPlicatrons, if anY Pending, shal1 also stand P. PONNA KRSHNA A TANT REGISTRAR State of Telangana, C.T' ComPlex, ,TI/ SECTION OFFICER Telangana. 10.The Commissioner of C-ommercial Taxes' '- r.fimpatty, HYderabad- 500001 11.The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax' Nacharam 1 Circle' Malkajgiri Division 12'n Ftoor. souii'ilind,' diliin iiiai,-Nimpally, llyderabad - 500 ool ,]: \ i I I 1 I I

F 9 a "IfE"l;[:],leZBTd,or state raxes, 3d Frcror, 3.T C( mplex, Nampally, ,;#tlii1ifr*ims*,.q,irrrii:rnJyr,.x,iri,.#.;,*HB.J:,.I;,jf ,, ii":::":(il-".,3i,!,1?r.S:;:!i%r88parrment (si;at" r,*,, srate or noioJ o",,ilJi ;lnmissioner, (GSr) 15r,1 1116, 16 The corn'nir;r;ionc. ^r cr^1- -' - ' \" ' / nyoergL'(Ja- Ash;k Nagar circle' ', ;;ff :';;; ;m- .r"1"5'JT 3:x'3'Ps': "*f ffi r :3';;'"'" csr ,"Jl:","?t;rn ji:i,.,y,*rgs.gs,:.*r#:;u j*,i[*?*.*", " ,Bt"r8i ro slll GAD, PRAVEEN nrro* o"o*y s()riciror c enerar of rndia 'o f;!i,."8,?i?,,! ]l.oo3.X',IL.. bEsU6lDEs, senior s . r,:r ct ntrar Board or 21.One CC to SRt i,\t KtSl 22.onecc to sRr .r *on'o* soLANKr, Advocate [opl(]l 23 one cc to S r .J\RAN i-:#,T:::::TJff:i, 24.One CC to Sl?t jAt KTSHAN SOLANK|, Advocate tOpU_l 25.Two CD C6pr51s "#. MP BS

10 D/\TED 25t04t2025 \ t,. HllGH COURT 0'1 ,iil M "s s. l. i)F ( ( d ($(' + + ,r J !) W.P.Nos 1}lgg, 10g21,210g52, l[gt2and 1 0929 of DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PE"TITIONS c -1 :-' .r') \l': r...:- - -_ COMMON ORDER WITI{OUT COSTS r \t-:o \ I b \\ l I i 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.