BharatTaxGST

M/S.Gee Kay Steel Corporation vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Original PDF →
WP/4073/2025HC TelanganaGSTCNR HBHC01007820202521 April 2025Bench: SUJOY PAUL,RENUKA YARA9 pages
For Petitioner: SRl. SHAIK JEELANI BASHAFor Respondent: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA Special Govt, Pleader for State Tax
AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. Gee Kay Steel Corporation, filed multiple writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) for various tax periods, including August 2020, September 2019, April 2020, and another unspecified period in 2020. The Petitioner contended that the orders were passed under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, instead of Section 73, without considering their objections, without generating a Document Identification Number (DIN), without providing sufficient opportunity to be heard, and were unsigned. They also argued that Form GST DRC-01A was not issued as required and that Section 74 was wrongly invoked, especially concerning the extended period of limitation. The Petitioner provided invoices and bank statements as proof of payment. The Respondents were the Assistant Commissioner (ST), the State of Telangana, the Union of India, and the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs.

Held

The Court set aside the impugned notices and orders in all the writ petitions. The reasoning was based on the submission by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax that the impugned notices and orders were unsigned. The Court relied on a previous common order passed in W.P.No.21101 of 2024 & batch, dated 28.02.2025, which dealt with similar issues of unsigned orders. The Court held that such unsigned orders are not valid. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside. Liberty was granted to the respondents to issue fresh show cause notices/orders in accordance with the law. The Court explicitly stated that the limitation period would not be a hurdle for the respondents in undertaking this fresh exercise. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the 1st Respondent in passing orders under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, instead of Section 73, for the tax periods in question, without considering the Petitioner's objections, without generating a DIN, without providing sufficient opportunity to be heard, and without signatures, is arbitrary, contrary to law, and in violation of principles of natural justice and the Constitution of India. 2. Whether the failure of the 1st Respondent to issue Form GST DRC-01A is contrary to Section 169 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, read with Rule 142(1A). 3. Whether the levying of tax, interest, and penalty under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act, despite the Petitioner having invoices and bank statements as proof of payment, is illegal and arbitrary. 4. Whether invoking Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, by passing orders for the specified tax periods, utilizing the extended period of limitation, is valid in law. Petitioner's arguments: The Petitioner argued that the impugned orders were procedurally flawed, lacking essential requirements like DIN and signatures, and that the principles of natural justice were violated. They contended that Section 73 should have been invoked, not Section 74, especially as they had documentary evidence of payment. They also highlighted the non-issuance of Form GST DRC-01A. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the Revenue or State respondents. However, the common order indicates a submission by the learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax.

Sections Cited

Section 74, Section 73, Section 169, Rule 142(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Between: M/s.Gee Kay Steel Corporation, 1-8-3215, 2nd Floor,- Bapubagh^ Colony, S.O.noaO, S6cunderabad I soo 0og, State of Telangana. Rep. by its Proprietor Mr.Gopal Kishan Agarwal ...PETITIONER { 3446I HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION NOS: 3581 4073 3584 AND 6034 0F 2025 WRIT PETITION NO:3581 OF 2025 AND 1. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), lr/.G.Road-S.D.Road Circle, Begumpet Division, Hyderabad. 2. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (CT) Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3. The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. 4. The Central Board of lndirect Taxes and Customs, Rep. by its Chairman, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, Central Secretariat, New DAlhi - '100 0o1 . (2nd to 4th Respondents are not necessary parties) ...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 Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order. or direction declaring (1) the action of the '1st Respondent in passing the Order, dated 18/09/2024, the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07' dated 18logt2\24 and the Summary of Assessment Order, dated 18/09/2024 under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Aci 2017, instead of under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Acl 2017, for the tax period August 2020, without considering the detailed objections of the Petitioner, dated 1410212024, without generating verifiable Document ldentification Number (DlN), without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner, after submission of objections, without signature in the Order, dated 18/09/2024, the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 18/09/2024, as arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the CGST/SGST Act, not valid in the eye of law, in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Rule of Law, and contrary to the Article 1a, rcQ)@) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia, (2) the action of the 1"t Respondent in not issuing the Form GST DRC-01A, as contrary to Section 169 of the CGST/SGST Acts 2017 read with Rule 142(1A) of the CGST/SGST Acts 2017, (3) the action of the 1St Respondent in levying tax, interest and penalty under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act, for the tax period August 2020, though the Petitioner has lnvoices and Bank Statement for payment proof, as illegal, arbitrary, improper, unfair, violating articles 14, 19(1(g),2'l and 300A of the Constitution of lndia (4) invoking Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act 2017 by pissing the Order, dated 1810912024, the Summary of the Order, dated 18lOgl2O24 and the Summary of Assessment Order. dated 1810912024 for the tax period August 2020, taking extended period of limitation, is not valid in the eye of law lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Order. dated 18/09/2024, the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 18/09/2024 and the Summary of Assessment Order, dated '18/09/2024 passed by the 1st Respondent for the tax period August 2020 under Section 74 o'f lhe CGST/SGST Acts 2017, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, as otheruruise, the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA Special Govt Pleader for State Tax Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI PULIMAMIDI SHASHTDHAR SC FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES SC FOR CBIC WRIT PETIT|ON NO:4073 OF 2025 Between: M/s.Gee Kay Steel Corporation. S.D.Road, Secunderabad - 500 Proprietor Mr.Gopal Kishan Agaruval 1-8-3215, 2nd Floor, Bapubagh 003. State of Telangana. Rep. Colony, by its ...PETITIONER AND 1 2 The Assistant Commissioner (ST), M.G.Road-S.D.Road Circle, Begumpet Division, Hyderabad. The State of Telangana, Eep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (CT) Department, Telangana Secretarial, Hyderabad. 3. The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. 4. The Central Board of lndirect Taxes and Customs, Rep. by its Chairman, Ministrv of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Dalhi - 100 001 . (2nd to 4th Respondents are not necessary parties) ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed theiewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue wRlT oF MANDAIVIUS or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring. ('l ) the action of the l st Respondent in passing the Order, dated 19.09.2024, the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07' dated 't9.09.2024 and the summary of Assessment order, dated 19.0s.2024 under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Acl 2O17, instead of under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act 2O17 ' for lhe tax period September 2019, without generating verifiable Document ldentification Number (DlN), without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner, without signature in the Order, dated t9.09.2024' the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 19.09.2024, as arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the CGST/SGST Act, not valid in the eye of law, in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Rule of Law, and contrary to the Article 14, 19(2)(g) and 265 of the constitution of lndia (2) the action of the 1st Respondent in not issuing the Form GST DRC-01A, as contrary to Section 169 of the CGST/SGST Act 2017 read with Rule 1 42( 1 A) of the CGST/SGST Act 2017 (3\ the action of the 1"t Respondent in levying tax, interest and penalty under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act, for the tax period September 2019. though the Petitioner has lnvoices and Bank Statement for payment proof, as illegal, arbitrary, improper, unfair, violating articles 14, 19(1(g), 21 and 300A of the Constitution of lndia, (4) invoking Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Acl 2017 by passing the Order, dated 19.09.2024, the Summary of the Order, dated 19.09.2024 and the Summary of Assessment Order, dated 19.09.2024 for the tax period September 2019, taking extended period of limitation, is not valid in the eye of law lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Suspend the operation of the Order, dated 19.09.2024, the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 19.09.2024 and the Summary of Assessment Order, dated 19.09.2024 passed by the 1"t Respondent for the tax p,eriod September 2019 under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Acts 2017, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, as otherwise, the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Gounsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA Special Govt Pleader for State Tax Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI PULIMAMIDI SHASHIDHAR SC FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES Sc FOR CBIC WRIT PETITION NO: 3584 OF 202s Between: M/s.Gee Kay Steel Corporation, 1-8-3215, 2nd Floor, Bapubagh Colony, S.D.Road, Secunderabad - 500 003. State of Telangana. Rep. by its Proprietor Mr.Gopal Kishan Agarwal ...PETITIONER AND 1 2 The Assistant Commissioner (ST), M.G.Road-S.D.Road Circle, Begumpet Division, Hyderabad. The State of Telangana, Rep- by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (CT) Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. The Central Board of lndirect Taxes and Customs, Rep. by its Chairman, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi - 100 001 . 3 4 ...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 Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or direction declaring. (1 ) the action of the 1St Respondent in passing the Order, dated 1810912024, the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 1BlO9l2O24 and the Summary of Assessment Order, dated 18logl2o24 under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Acts 2017, instead of under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Acts 2017 , for the tax period April 2O2O, without considering the detailed objections of the Petitioner, dated 1510212024, without generating verifiable Document ldentification Number (DlN), without providing sufficient opporlunity of being heard to the Petitioner, after submission of objections, without signature in the Order, dated 18/09/2O24, lhe Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 1810912024, as arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the CGST/SGST Acts 2017, not valid in the eye of law, in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Rule of Law. and contrary to.the Article la, 19(2)(9) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia. (2) the action of the l"t Respondent in not issuing_ the Form GST DRC-0'lA, as contrary to Section 169 of the CGST/SGST Acts 2017 read with Rule 142(14) of the GGST/sGST Acts 2017. (3) the action of the 1st Respondent in levying iax, interest and penalty under section 74 of the CGST/SGST Acts 2017, for the tax period April 2020, though the Petitioner has lnvoices and Bank Statement for payment proof, as illegal, arbitrary, improper, unfair, violating articles 1 4, t 9(t (g), 21 and 3004 of the Constitution of lndia. (4) invoking Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Acts 2017 by passing the Order, dated 18/09/2024, the Summary of the order, dated 18i09i2 o24 and the summary of Assessment order; dated 18logt2)24 for the tax period April 2020, taking extended period of limitation, is not valid in the eye of law IANO:1OF 2025 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to iuspend the operation of th" ord"r, dated 18/09/2024, the Summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 18i09/2024 and the Summa.ry of Assessment order, dated 18/09/2024 passed by the 1st Respondent for the tax period April 2020 under section 74 of the cG-sT/sGST Acts 2017, pending disposal of the above writ Petition, as otheMise, the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2: SRI SwARooP ooRlLLA Special Govt Pleader for State Tax Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR DY' SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI DoMlNlc FERNANDES Sc FoR cBlc WRIT PETITION NO: 6034 OF 2025 Between: Colony, by its ...PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner (ST), M.G.Road-S.D.Road Circle, Begumpet Division, Hyderabad. It//s.Gee Kav Steel Corporation, 1-8-3215' 2nd Floor, Bapubagh s.o.n"io. decunderabab - 5oo 003. State of Telangana' Rep Proprietor Mr.Gopal Kishan Agarwal 2. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (CT) Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3. The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. 4. The Central Board of lndirect Taxes and Customs, Rep. by its Chairman, uinistry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, central secretariat, New Delhi - 100 001 . ...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 Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or direction declaring. (1 ) the action of the 1St Respondent in passing the Order, dated - :Ftfwr@v '.- a' -e I ''-t/,/ ' -". // 18.09.2024, the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 18.09.2024 and the Summary of Assessment Order, dated 18.O9.2024 under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act 2017, instead of under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act 2017, for the tax period April 2020, without considering the detailed objections of the Petitioner, dated 15.02.2024, without generating verifiable Document ldentification Number (DlN), without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner, after submission of objections, without signature in the Order, dated 18.09.2024, the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 18.09.2024, as arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the CGST/SGST Acts 2017, not valid in the eye of law, in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Rule of Law, and contrary to the Article 1a, 19(2)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India. (2) the action of the 1st Respondent in not issuing the Form GST DRC-01A, as contrary to Section 169 of the CGST/SGST Acts 20'17 read with Rute 142(14) of the CGST/SGST Acts 2017, (3) the action of the 1st Respondent in levying tax, interest and penalty under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Acts 2017, for the tax period April 2020, though the Petitioner has lnvoices and Bank Statement for payment proof, as illegal, arbitrary, improper, unfair, violating articles 14, 19(1(g), 21 and 3004 of the Constitution of lndia, (4) invoking Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Acts 2017 by passing the Order, dated 18.09.2024, the Summary of the Order, dated 18.09.2024 and the Summary of Assessment Order, dated 18.09.2024 for the tax period April 2020, taking extended period of limitation, is not valid in the eye of law lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Order, dated 18.09.2024, the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 18.09.2024 and the Summary of Assessment Order, dated 18.09.2024 passed by the 1st Respondent for the tax period April 2020 under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Acts 2017, pending disposat of the above Writ Petition, as otheruise, the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1&2: SRI SWAROOP OORTLLA Special Govt Pleader for State Tax Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRt cADl PRAVEEN KUMAR SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI DOMIN|C FERNANDES SC FOR CBIC

I I THE HOI'PBLE THE ACTING CIIIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKAYARA WRIT PEf,ITION Nos.3581, Q73.3584 and 6034 of 2o25 COMMON ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujog Paul) Sri Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader appearing lor State Tax.

2.

Regard being had to the similitude of the questions involved, on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are analogously heard and decided by this common order.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax submitted that since the impugned notice(s) and order(s) are unsigned, the same may be set aside in view of the common order passed in W.P.No.211O1 of 2024 & batch, dated 28.02.2025. 4. Accordingly, the impugned notice(s) and order(s) in these Writ Petitions are set aside. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to issue fresh show cause notice(s)/ order(s) in accordance with l )

2 { law and, for undertaking this exercise afresh, the limitation will not be a hurdle for the respondents. 5 The Writ Petitions are disposed of without expressing any oprnion on the merits of the case. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand clo sed. P. CH NAGA BHUSHAMBA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //// SECTI OFFICER

1.

The Assistant Commissioner (ST), M.G.Road-S.D.Road Circle, Begumpet Division, Hyderabad.

2.

T.he Principal Secretary, Revenue (CT) Depa(ment, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

3.

The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ivlinistry of Finance, New Delhi.

4.

The Chairman, Central Board of lndirect Taxes and Customs, Mrnistrv of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, Central Secretariat, Niew Delhi - 100 001. (2nd to 4th Respondents are not necessary parties)

5.

One CC to SRl. SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Advocate IOPUCI

6.

One CC to SRI DoMlNlC FERNANDES SC FOR CB|C IOPUC]

7.

One CC to SRl. PULIMAMIDI SHASHTDHAR REDDY SC FOR CENTRAL GOW [OPUC] B. One CC to Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia [OpUC]

9.

Two CCs to GP for STATE TAX, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] '

10.

Two CD Copies To, KKS KKS t.r

HIGH COURT HAC,J & RY,J DATED:21 10412025 ,-a ;- I t 5l^ t o U O3 EEF 2E o ''. I,i:,. ar:: COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.3581,4073,3584 and 6034 of 2025 DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS l+ ( { t ?- v o +

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.