M/S.Neha Sales Marketin vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. Neha Sales Marketing, filed a writ petition challenging the actions of the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Jeedimetla - 2 Circle. The challenge was directed at an undated Attachment to Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 06.06.2022, and an impugned Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 19.12.2023, which imposed a tax of Rs. 10,62,537/- with penalty. The Petitioner contended that these documents were not signed manually, digitally, or electronically as mandated by the CGST Act, 2017 and Rules for the year 2017-18. The Petitioner sought to declare these actions void, illegal, without jurisdiction, and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. A stay was also sought on further proceedings.

Held

The Court did not delve into the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B. Krishna Reddy, sought to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to file a properly constituted petition. The learned counsel representing the respondent-State Tax, Sri T. Chaitanya Kiran, had no objection to this request. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, granting the liberty prayed for by the petitioner. No costs were imposed, and any pending miscellaneous petitions were ordered to stand closed. The specific issues regarding the unsigned notices and orders, and their validity under the CGST Act and Constitution, were not decided on merits due to the withdrawal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the undated Attachment to Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 06.06.2022, and the impugned Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 19.12.2023, are void, illegal, and without jurisdiction for being unsigned, contrary to the mandate of the CGST Act, 2017 and Rules for the year 2017-18? 2. Whether the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing unsigned notices and orders violates Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that the issuance of unsigned notices and orders by the 2nd respondent is a procedural illegality and a violation of statutory mandates under the CGST Act, 2017 and Rules. This lack of proper authentication renders the entire action void and without legal sanctity. The Petitioner also contended that such arbitrary action violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 (equality before law) and 19 (freedom of trade and business) of the Constitution of India. Respondents' Arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments made by the respondents. However, their presence and representation indicate an opposition to the relief sought by the petitioner.