BharatTaxGST

Water Tech Engineers vs. Assisstant Commissioner Of CGST

Original PDF →
WP/21072/2024HC TelanganaGSTCNR HBHC01033032202422 April 2025Bench: SUJOY PAUL,RENUKA YARA7 pages
For Petitioner: SRI T.SRINIVASA MURTHYFor Respondent: SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES, Sr. SC FOR CB|C

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENW SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT [ 3446 ] Person Sri Kotturi 1"t Floor, Salula 5( THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION NO:21072 OF 2024 Between: WATER TECH ENGINEERS, Rep. by its Authorised Srinivas S/o Kotturi Shankar Manager -Admin, Arcade,l80,Tarbund Secunderabad, 500009 Telangana ...PETITIONER AND 1 2 Assisstant Commissioner of CGST, Malkajigiri Division. H.No.8-2-7713 & 4, Aditya Towers, Sri Sai Enclave, Old Bowenpaaly Secunderabad-SO0O'l 1 The Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Medchal Commissionerate CF36 + 454, Redhills, Hyderabad, Telangana 500004 3. The Chief Commissioner of Goods, and Service Tax And Customs, Hyderabad Zone, Central Tax, Hyderabad Zone, GST Bhavan, L.B Stadium Road Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-50004 4. The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary(Finance) CBIC Ministry of Finance, North Block New Delhi -1 10001 5. The State of Telangana, Rep by Principal Secretary to Revenue, Commercial Tax Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 oI the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances, stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in pursuance of the lmpugned Order in Original No.2412O24 GST dated 29-03-2024 with Demand of Tax Rs. 51,04,778 u/s 74(9)of CGST Act2017 R/w Section 122(21(b) of CGST Act2017 (ii) interest u/s 50(3) of CGST Act R/w Section 20 of the IGST Act (iii) equal amount of tax as Penalty of Rs.51,04,778 uls 122121(b) of CGST Act 2O17, along with the unsigned GST DRC-07 dated 26-04-2024 uploaded in contravention of Section 3 of lnformation Technology Act 2000 (21 of 2000) as mandated by rule 26(3) of CGST Rules, read with Rule 142 (5) of CGST Rules, and 1st Respondent failure to issue the same simultaneously with OlO, without signing the documents digitally, as void ab initio, and the same is without ,.lurisdiction or Authority, contrary to the principles of natural justice, contrary to the Provisions of CGST Act and the Rules made there under, illegal, arbitrary, capricious, contrary the Apex Court Judgements and contrary to Articles 14,19, read with 300A, of the Constitution of lndia., and to pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest ofjustice. The Prayer is Amended as per Court Order datedl3-08-2024 vider lA.No.2 of 2024. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Ser;rion 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be, pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance the impugned Orcier Demand of lmpugned Order in O.iginal with Demand of Tax Rs.51 ,04,778 u/s 74(9)of CGST Act 2017 Rlw Section 122(2)(b)ot CGST Act2017 (ii) interest u/s 50(3) of CGST Act Rl/w section 2c, of the IGST Act (iii) equal amount of tax ari penalty of Rs.51,04,778 uls 122(2\(b) of CGST Acl 2O17, pending disposat ,rf this Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T.SRINIVASA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES, Sr. SC FOR CB|C Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI cAD! PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUW SOLICITOR GENERIAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SPL GP FOR STATE TAX

The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION No.2LO72 cif 2o24 " ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujog Paul) Sri T. Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. With the consent, hnallY heard'

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that the points involved in this writ petition are squarely covered by a recent common order passed in W'P'No'21101 of 2024 & batch, dated 2a.O2.2O25. Since DRC-07 is unsigned document and not pregnant with any physical/digital signatures, in view of the said common order, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

4.

Learned Senior Stalding Counsel for CBIC placed reliance on paragraph No.21 of the counter and the brief note annexed with the counter to submit that justifiable reasons are given ursuant to which DRC-07 was unsigned' In the light of these

2 documents, pzLragraph No.21 . and distinguishable, 'brief note,, the matter is 5. The pat-tir:s have sonflned their arguments trt the extent indicated abo,rr: and no other point is pressed.

6.

In W p.No.2110i Court opined as under:_ of 2024 & batch, dated 28.02.2025, this '.

41.

This is trite that if a law prescribes a thing to be done ffiX#T;:Xlil?T3 the same riu";-;-d#: in rl,e same Prasannir ,rnd commil:l"-iit torbidden (see Baru Rim v. 1,,J.?J .l3grtjil 3*;itj", Jiq JH;.il:#;;* viora r ion .,,, l;;',h"' ;. ;:. ::*.:::",i:, :^t_-lloo.' o rn, :er, i ts #,il" l? * ::1,, 3,'..1 ::,.l nlo"d ;;c:; i T: :l;- l;' " ; l#f X musr be ht.l,l as ,.r,rJniio've rule and prescribei, p616

7.

A plain rea.ding of the aforesaid paragraph makes it clear that this Court opined that when statute prescribes a thing to be done rn a particular manner, it has to be done in the same manner and the other methods are forbidden After considering vanous judgments of Supreme Court, the other High Crturts and the order of the ,:o_ordinate Bench of this Court, this Cr:urt came ' atR tgsg sc qJ ' (2002) I SCC 633 \ \

3 \ to hold that if DRC-01 and DRC-07 are also not signed for whatever reason, the impugned orders are vitiated. The reasons assigned in paragraph No.21 of the counter and the brief note cannot prevail over the statutory requirement.

8.

Resultantly, we are inclined to follow our view in W.P.No.211O1 of 2024 & batch, dated28.02.2025. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders are set aside. Liberty as given in W.P.No.21101 of 2024 & batch dated 28.02.2025 to the revenue shall be applicable in the same manner in the present case as well.

10.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. .L.LAKSHMI BABU //II EPUTY REG]STRAR SECTION OFFICER The Assisstant Commission er of CGST Mal Jrgiri Division. H.No.8-2- 77l3and4,Ad itya Towers, Sri Sai Enclave OId Bowenpaaly Secunderabad- To, 1 50001

2.

The Comm 1 9^9ITl::j"q"f^Jf. Cgtlrrl Goods and Service rax, Medchat rssronerate CF36 ptus 454, Redhiils, Hyderrbaa, f;iingana 500004

3.

Ihq chief commissioner_ of Goods, and service Tax And customs. Hvderabad Zone. cenrra r rax, rlvoeri6ao zlonEl csi e tiir"'"]'i. a'st"#i, ;i Road Basheerbagh, HyderabrJ_S6OO+

4.

The Secretarv(Finance) CBIC Ministry of Finance, North Block New Delhi, Union of lndia -110001 ' -t 5' Ing Principal Secretary to Rev-errue, commerciar rax Department, secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, State or ieijnganJ."-'"'-' '

6.

One CC to SRI LSRTNTVASA MURTHY, Advocate tOpUCl

7.

One CC to SRt DOMTNIC FERNANDES, Sr. SC FOR CBIC IOPUC] 8. one cc to sRr cADr PRAVE^EN KUMAR, DEpury Solrcrr,fR GENERTAT OF tND|A, Hish oourt ror *re Staie t-r'ilrr';g"r;;it Hyderabad tOpUCl I Tyg CCsto SpL Gp FORSTATETAX at Hyderabad [OUT] 'll0.Two CD Copies High Court for the State of Telangana BSR LS

HIGH COURT DATED:2210412025 . ,- t, .' i, \,'-_ L',..-.; f - -l [3 ,-.r'{ ?06 O7q " t-) o f }} C) I {'+ .l( ORDER WP.No.21072 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS lb il

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.