M/S. Srusti Pharmacy vs. State Tax Officer

WP/10840/2025HC TelanganaGSTCNR HBHC01021659202522 April 2025Bench: SUJOY PAUL,RENUKA YARA4 pages

For Petitioner: SRI KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDy, coun s e I ror the Res po'o" "F;, t []If#t6]Ifl [Tt]i ;"J ion srare rnx

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Srusti Pharmacy, represented by its Proprietrix, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated 29.05.2022 and an adjudication order dated 28.12.2023, along with Form GST DRC-07, issued by the State Tax Officer, Warangal Urban-III. These actions were taken for the tax period 2017-18 under Section 73 of the CGST and SGST Act. The petitioner contended that these documents were nullities as they lacked signatures and were contrary to Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017, for not issuing Form GST DRC-01A prior to the adjudication order. The petitioner sought to declare these orders as non-est in law and also sought a stay of further proceedings.

Held

The Court did not delve into the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to file a properly constituted petition. The learned counsel representing the respondent-State Tax had no objection to this request. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, granting the petitioner the liberty to file a fresh petition. No costs were awarded. The specific issues regarding the validity of the show cause notice and adjudication order due to lack of signatures and non-compliance with Rule 142(1A) were not decided by the Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the show cause notice dated 29.05.2022 and the adjudication order dated 28.12.2023, issued by the State Tax Officer for the tax period 2017-18 under Section 73 of the CGST and SGST Act, are liable to be declared a nullity and non-est in law on account of the absence of signatures on these documents? 2. Whether the said adjudication order is contrary to Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017, for non-issuance of Form GST DRC-01A prior to its passing? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the absence of signatures on the show cause notice and the adjudication order rendered them void. Furthermore, the failure to issue Form GST DRC-01A before passing the adjudication order violated Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017, making the order a nullity. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments made by the respondent-State Tax.

Sections Cited

Section 73, Rule 142(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

134461 IN THE 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 THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION NO: 10840 0F 2025 Between: M/s. Srusti Pharmacy, rep. by its P.roprietrix, Itilrs'. Sulochana Nagabandi' 9-1-175' Girmajipet, Hanumakbnda-506 002, Warangal Drstflct' ...PETITIONER AND 1. State Tax Officer, Warangal Urban-lll, Warangal' 2. State of Telangana, rep. by its Chief Secretary' and Special.Chief Secretary to - c;;;;.""1 tFncl, sGiJtai Department' S6cretariat' Hvderabad' 3. Union of lndia, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance' Government of lndia' " 5iiii"dr, Jt"raiio"'ep euildins, Sinsao M'ars' New Delhi-1 10 001 ...RESPONDENTS 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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or directiondeclaringtheshowcausenoticedated2g.0S.2022.adjudicationorder dated28.l2.2o23alongwithFormGSTDRC-07videRef.No.ZD361223056056M daled 28.12.2023 passed by the Respondent for the tax period 2017-18 under section 73 of the CGST and SGST Act as being a nullity and non-est in law on account of not having any signatures on them and and also contrary to Rule 142(1A)of CGST Rules, 2017 for not issuing Form GST DRC-01A' ;* ,/ lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under riection 151 cpc praying that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit filed irr s;upport of the petition, the High court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order dated 28.12.2023 and proceedings in Form GST DRC-07 in Ref.No.ZD3612230560s6M dated 28-12.2023 passed by the lst Respondent for the tax period 2017-18, pending disposal cf the writ petition as otherwise the petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDy coun s e I ror the Res po'o" "F;, t []If#t6]Ifl [Tt]i ;"J ion srare rnx

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.lOS4O OF 2o25 ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paut) Sri Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy, Iearned counsel for the petitioner, seeks to withdraw this writ petition with the liberty to file a properly constituted petition.

Sri T.Chaitanya Kiran, learned counsel representing Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent-State Tax, has no objection.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn lr'ith the liberty prayed for. No costs. Miscellaleous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUW REGISTRAR //// SECTION OFFICER

One CC to SRI KARTHIK RAIvIANA PUTTAM DY, Advocate. [OPUC]

One CC to SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPL.G.P for State Tax. [OPUC] To, 3 BSK LS Two CD Copies fu- I

HIGH COURT DATED:2210412025 ,a- 5)A,=':\,.\ ,,'.\ 1 o q)c rJ 01 ,,,lr ,o,i'ui\i at t t E.:ipAa:i sa ORDER WP.No.10840 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETTTION AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS llM'

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.