Sandeep Vyas vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, aggrieved by an order and show cause notice (SCN) issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), filed a writ petition before the High Court. The petitioner challenged the validity of the SCN and the order, dated December 30, 2023, and May 31, 2022, respectively, on the grounds that they were unsigned, lacking digital or e-signature as required by Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017. Alternatively, the petitioner argued that the order, passed solely on the basis of no reply being filed due to retrospective cancellation of GST registration, was unsustainable. The petitioner sought to set aside the impugned order and SCN or, in the alternative, for the matter to be remitted back for re-adjudication. Interlocutory applications were also filed seeking suspension of the order and lifting of bank attachment.
Held
The Court noted that 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 Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn with the liberty granted to the petitioner. No costs were awarded. The interlocutory applications, if any pending, were also closed. The Court did not make any findings on the merits of the issues raised regarding the unsigned SCN/order or the sustainability of the order passed due to non-filing of reply. The decision was based solely on the petitioner's request to withdraw the petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned Order (Ref. No. 2D3612230675882 dated 30.12.2023) and Show Cause Notice (SCN) (Ref. No. 2D3605220271581 dated 31.05.2022) are liable to be set aside for being unsigned, lacking digital or e-signature as envisaged under Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner contended that the absence of a valid signature renders the SCN and the consequent order invalid. The respondents' arguments on this issue are not recorded. 2. Whether the impugned order, passed solely on the ground that the petitioner had not filed a reply due to retrospective cancellation of GST registration, is sustainable. The petitioner argued that the retrospective cancellation prevented them from filing a reply, making the order unsustainable and warranting remittance for re-adjudication. The respondents' arguments on this issue are not recorded.
Sections Cited
Rule 26(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JI'STICE RENUKA YARA WRIT ON No -1L527 of2025 ORDER(PertheHon'bletheActingChiefJusticeSuioAPaul)i Sri Jai Kishan Solanki' learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, for the resPondent(s)-State counsel rePresenting Sri Gadi Tax and Sri B. Mukherjee' learned Praveen Kumar, learned DePutY SolicitorGeneraloflndia,fortherespondent-Unionoflndia.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to hle a properlY constituted Petition'
The other side has no objection 4 Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty prayed for' No costs Interlocutory applications, if any pending' shall also stand closed. s D,-P. " r;E|SS"HHSISHRI /T'/ SECTION OFFICER 'O,,,. ON" CC tO SRI JAI KISHAN SOLANKI' AdVOCAtC' TOPUCI
OneCC to SRI SWAROOP OORILLA' SPL'G'P for State Tax' IOPUCI .3[?3:. jft ?#|."#,',|#Y:F"}J:Yy}5tl3s|"t.x.:?3"i.3bi.n"','of lndia)'
Two CD CoPies' BSK LS +P
HIGH COURT DATED:21l04t2\Zs ORDER WP.No.11527 of 2O2S l'1 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS WITHDRAWN WTHOUT COSTS 1 uE sIari. tsprrc HgA 26 APB ilM 7 J U * * t) 2b ,\ i I I I I i W
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.