M/S. Gopal Electricals vs. Assistant Commissioner (State Tax)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Electricars, represented by its proprietor, Mr. Krishna Kumar Asawa, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated May 31, 2022, and an adjudication order dated December 30, 2023, along with Form GST DRC-07, issued by the first respondent. These orders pertained to the tax period 2017-18 and were passed under Section 73 of the CGST and SGST Act. The petitioner argued that these documents were null and void due to the absence of signatures and non-compliance with Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017, for not issuing Form GST DRC-01A. The petitioner sought to declare these proceedings a nullity and sought a stay on further proceedings.
Held
The Court did not delve into the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a properly constituted petition. The other side had no objection to this request. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, granting the petitioner the liberty to file a fresh petition. No costs were awarded. The Court's decision was based solely on the petitioner's request for withdrawal, not on the substantive issues raised regarding the validity of the GST notices and orders.
Key Issues
1. Whether the show cause notice dated May 31, 2022, and the adjudication order dated December 30, 2023, along with Form GST DRC-07, are null and void for lacking signatures, thereby violating principles of natural justice and statutory provisions? (Question of law turning on Section 73 of the CGST and SGST Act and Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the absence of signatures on the show cause notice and the adjudication order renders them invalid. Furthermore, the non-issuance of Form GST DRC-01A, as mandated by Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017, makes the subsequent adjudication order a nullity. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue or state respondents.
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 ttre following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION No.l2237 of2O2s ORDER: (Per the Hon'bte the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy paul) Sri Aitharaju Venkateshu,arlu, learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file . a properly constituted petition.
The other side has no objection.
Accordingly, this Writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty prayed for. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. .P, CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //// SECTI FFICER /r /l olgo To 1. One CC to SRI AITHARAJU VENKATESHWARLU, Advocate [OPUC]
Two CCs to GP FOR STATE TAX, High Court for the State of Telangina, at Hyderabad. [OUT]
One CC to.SRl GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF rNDrA [OPUC]
Two CD Copies PSK. LS
HIGH COURT DATE D :2 410412025 ORDER :L ,/a 1 trE Si.r a\s ,,€ ) '6'( a: c WP.No.12237 of 2025 22 l']AY m E::i o ^-r {,: r .L l',.:--... ? DISMISSING. THE WRIT PETITION AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS ) lc,
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.