M/S.Marigold Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner (St)

WP/6648/2025HC TelanganaGSTCNR HBHC01013101202526 March 2025Bench: SUJOY PAUL,RENUKA YARA9 pages

For Petitioner: SRt. S. SUR| BABUFor Respondent: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPECIAL FQVT PLEAbER FOR $TATE TAX

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

These four writ petitions (WP Nos. 6648, 7427, 8050, and 8156 of 2025) were filed before the Telangana High Court. The petitioners, M/s. Marioold Enterprises, M/s. Bhargav Medical Hall, and M/s. Multi Fabs, challenged assessment orders and show cause notices issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST). The tax periods involved were 2019-20 and 2018-19. The primary grievance was that the impugned notices and orders were uploaded on the GST portal without physical or digital signatures, allegedly violating Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017. In WP No. 7427 of 2025, a bank attachment notice was also challenged. The petitioners sought to set aside these documents and, in some cases, sought a stay on further proceedings and revocation of bank attachments.

Held

The Court held that the impugned notices and orders in all the writ petitions were liable to be set aside. The reasoning was based on the submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, who conceded that the impugned notices and orders were unsigned. The Court referred to a common order previously passed in W.P. No. 21101 of 2024 and batch, dated 28.02.2025, which dealt with similar issues. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned notices and orders. Any consequential bank attachments were also revoked. The Court reserved liberty for the respondents to issue fresh show cause notices or orders in accordance with the law, and importantly, stated that the limitation period would not be a hurdle for the respondents in undertaking this exercise afresh. The Court explicitly mentioned that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment orders and show cause notices issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) are illegal, arbitrary, void ab initio, and without authority of law due to the absence of physical or digital signatures, thereby violating Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, and the principles of natural justice? 2. Whether bank attachment notices issued under Section 79(1)(c) of the CGST Act are liable to be suspended or revoked if based on unsigned assessment orders or show cause notices? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the impugned notices and orders were not signed either physically or digitally, which is contrary to Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017. They contended that this renders the documents illegal, arbitrary, void, and violative of constitutional provisions like Article 14, 19(1)(g), and 265. They relied on judicial pronouncements from the Telangana High Court and other High Courts. In one case, they also argued that the bank attachment was based on an unsigned order. Revenue's Arguments: The Special Government Pleader for State Tax submitted that since the impugned notices and orders were unsigned, they may be set aside in view of a common order previously passed by the Court in a similar batch of cases.

Sections Cited

Rule 26(3), Section 79(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[ 3446 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Speciat Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENry SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING gl:llEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE S$4T JUgTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION Nos: 6 48 742 050 AND 8156 F 2025 Between: AND 1 2 lt//s.Marioold Enterorises. Flat No.104 MlG1, Vaniiya Complex, Dharmareddy Colony, KeHB, Hyderabad, Telangana- 500 072, rijjrresented byits Managing Parnter, Sri B.Thirupathi Reddy. ...PEITTONER Assistant Cqmmissioner (ST), Ryder Nagar - :! Circle, Hy-{era[ad Rural, Telanoana. reoresented bv its Principal Secrelary, Revenue (Comtierciil raxes), tetaiigana Secietariat, Hyd'erabad. ...RE$PONDENTS Petition unQel Article 226 o[ the Cqnstitution q{ India prayiqg that in the circumstancql stEled i? the affidavlt filed tfrererryith, the HiSh Qgurt may bq pleasefl to issue a Writ qr Order or directiqn partieularlY one in thP nature of Writ of Mandamus setting aside thq impggned $QsPssrJrent Order paqq96 by the first respondent i;'t Form GSf DRQ 07, in ReferSlpe ryo.2Dq60824143170L, vide DIN No GSTi36ABEFM363BFIZB l2O, daled 30.Q8.2024, in raising a demand of tax of Rs.2,98,318/', (CGST amounting to Rs.1,49,159/- plus SGST amounting to Rs.1,49,159/-), and the Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC ql along with Attachment, for the tax pertod 2019-20, that have been uploade! in the GSf portal without either physically nor digitally signed which is contrary to the Rule 26 (3) of the CGST Rules 2017, as illegal .arbitrary, ab initio void, contrary to the provisions of CGST Act and Rules, 2017 and TGST Act and Rules, 20 17, contrary HyderaFad. The State of Depadlnent WP No.6648 OF 2025 ..---_.-..-1_ to the law laid dorarn by the judicial pronouncement of this Honourable court and Honourable High courts of Delhi, Bombay and Andhra pradesh and without authority of law lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 1S1 CpC praying that in the circgmsl.apces stated in the affidavit filed in r;upport of the petition, the High Court may, !e pleased tq grant.stay of all further proceedings arising in pursuancq of the impugned Assessment order oassed by the first respondent in Form Gsif DRQ 07, in Reference No.ZD360B241431TOL, vide D[! No. GST/36ABEFM3O3BF1ZB/20, dated 3p 09.?924, l9r the tax period Zg19-2A Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt. S. SUR| BABU Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPECIAL FQVT PLEAbER FOR $TATE TAX WPNO: 7427 OF 2025 Fe[weeP: I!l/s Bhargav Medicat .Hail, 0/o._6-3-6A6BDt1. laxmi ptaz4. Opp. Meena Bakery, PanJagutta,Tetangana, Rep.by its pioprietor, Sri f.f. )Zefi[ates[iar [qo^ ^S/g tate_ N .Somaiah, Aged abdut ht years,' O-cC ariin"..,,h%. ji.ru'd] a- 3- 1 69i23, H. F. Nagar, Borabinda, UyO-eraU'ad, Tela'nga na gNP "iPETIJIONEB r [iiirrti,]$?'Jll "fti1l5;i""t'r",1?Io);n,*u'nhabad-somajis r{a-2 cirpre, i ilE"ilfi :?,1i"_I"6:r,,:T;.i"",: ;,,?r*"i;incipar secreta ry, Reven ue (cr) 3- rhe Qentrar Board of rndirect Taxes'and customs, Rep by its chairman, tr{inistry of Fi1qnc,e, Department or nevenJe, r'ro;h Bi";(t".i,a'isEi[ili[t, New Delhi -100 001 The Bank Manaqer. HDFC-,Bank Ltd., panjagutta Branch, No 6/3/69g/4, P awani Plaza, Hyderabad, Telangana. ...BESPONDENTS Petition undep Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia prayirrg thqt in thg circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may bo pleased to issue a writ,r order or direction more particurarry one in the nature qf writ of Mandamus de.raring the impugned show cause Notices arong with .summary of Show cause Notices in Form DRc-01 vide Ref No.ZD 3611210045 n 4 2 (' 2' (-)2 8 dt. 12.11.2021 , Form DRC-O1 vide RefNo. 2D36O12403'1337Q dt. 25.01 .2024. and impugned order dated 29.04.2024 along with proceedings in Foim GST DRC-07 vide Ref. No. 2D36O4240803 10R daled 29.O4.2024 and impugned order daled 29.04.2024 along with proceedings in Form GST DRC-07 vide Ref No 2D360424O770679 dated 29.04.2024, passe( by the 1St Respondpnt for the tax period 2018-19 without having any signatu-r:e as illegal, arbitrary, apart f[cm violative of Article 14, 19(1Xg) and 265 of the Constitu(iOn o{ lndiq QgnseQuerltlyl ...-. set aside the same fletitigg unqer Sqglion 151 gFg prgyillS that in the qircur4s[pnceg stated in the affidayi( filed in suppo( of ths petifiqlj the Higfl Pou( pa){ Fg Rleased tp, suspend the bank attaghment notioe isqved l0 FClfn 9ST QRC-I3 daled 15.022:Q25 qrnder p-ectio4 79(1XC) ef GSf $gt, 9y ths I't lgqpogdent [q the 4!h respondent 90d alqp direQt the 4th lespondent tq de-frqgze lhe hi{rf ascounl of the'petitionFr, pen(ing qigposEl of thg writ Felilion O:2O 2025 Pgtitioq unqe( Se-Glian 151 AEq pr4yiqg that in the q![guruttancqg statqC in the 4ffidayi( filed in support of the petitigo, the HiSh €ou( may hP R!9r."6 1o grant stay of all fqrther propeedingg puqqyEnt to t[g impyOng{ prder dated 29.842824 glQns with procqedings in f,oqm QST. DRG,p7 Vide lef No. 2Pq604240A0p10R dated 2s044oZ4 aq4 lrnpqcned oroqi oalgf lrr:-1?* plorlg vlajth prgceeflings in FopJn GST DRq QZ vide [!t Nq, ZO3Q04ZaQ770Q79 g4qa 4901.4024,'passq! ov the 1!l RegBqndent foJ the [qx BQ[igo 2otq'19, penpinq dis.pgsal o{ the \{1it Petitioq gqunse! for the Pelilioner: sB!. KqHfT BHApKAE REPPY cel,nsqrrortheResponcentNos.l&rt,33li#*:li;."r.,$til1 Counsel for the Rgspondent No.3; SRI DOMINIC FERI.IANDES, SQ FOR CBIC gounsel for lhe Rgspondent No.4:- J lA NO: { OF 2025 WPNo. 8050 OF 2025 Between: 7 12, Balana y its [/anaging AND ,,.PETITIONER lA ilO: 1 oF 2025 =1 rr--TT- Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated fn tl'.re qffidayil filed in support of the petition, the High Court r,nay t29 plegse( tQ pending disposar o( the writ petition grant stay of ail further proceedings arising in pursuance of the impugned Assessment order passed by the first respon{e4l l1 Forrq GET DRC - 07, in Referencq M/s.Multi Fabs, 82, Survey Telangana - 500 037 represente No db gar, SVCIE, RangareddV, Partner, Sri D.Prasad. ss.islant Conrmissiener (ST), Faterr Nagar -eirclq, Hydelabad Bural pivision, ydelapad : :) he s.tate of relangana, reprpsented by itl principal Secrelarv. Revenue epartment (Commercia'l Tarp.E), Telahgana Qecqijlaiiat, Hyd6rabad :: " 'TE$PaUDENTS Retitiqg undFr Article ??0 e( the CenFtitutiqn 9[ lndiq praylQfl thal in lpq circumstanqes stalerl in lne affidayil fited therewith, the High'C;rn frry lg ple3se! to igque d Writ 91 Order at gifectien particularly ong in the ?gtuft of IAlriI o{ tr/aldamuE setting aEide rfie impqgned Ehow Qaup{ uoligg a,?( 4sqissgpqr Order passeQ by the first respondent in Form GST DRG.07, in Rgferenpe Ite,ZoO9oa24q727761, dated 2eO4.2oz!, in taising 3 CerEqg of tax of It ? l! iltt, (r9$'r amounlins le Rs.Q,Q0,Qlar + QPgr emoqqtins tq Ft 1,88,27Q{, * S9.?- amounrins !s [s i,Qg,t7el.,), ateqs qiih a igrm Agnutru[e, fg1{he tax FFIiod 20ls-19, thgt hayg been pptoqde{ ja tng pSI.:portqf'witho(l Iili:Xnr.if?llyror diqitatty qisned which ip conlrary to trjq flulq i6 (,E) of llg 9aGpT ryrtqp QQ17, as illegal ,arbitrgry ab irlitio vsid, cpptrary to thg provisions 9f 999T 6ct Eld Rulgp, 2Q17 and rGST Act qnd Rgres, 2017, coryt.?ry tq the taw :lj!.in..t{ llj ,:lo lr, proneunqement or this Flenosqgle Qgurt qpg H9no1,1pl9 !]iV! cglrrts SI De!!! Borppay and Apdhra PrqfleqQ and witheul agrfigrity gf tq[ 1.A H 2. T. )Q 4 -_-- tr <l /----5 No.2D3604240727761, dated 28.04.2024. Along with a form Annexure, vide ARN No.AD360124O33446C, dated 0.1 .31 .2024,1,or the tax period 2018-19 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. S. SURI BABU I counsql for the Regpondentsr SRI SWARO9P O9RILLA, ' :' Spiecial Govt Pleader fcii State Tar WPNo: 8156 OF 2025 ;rrr Beweeo: ':, Mis Mplti Faps, 82, Survey t{o 7'!,2, Bafanager, $VqlE. Rangareddy. Tplalgpna - EQO 037 rep'esenlgfl by i!9 Mani'ging Ffrtngt, Sri Q.prasad. ' ' ':. :' ' "'genrrolga Assistant Cqmmissioner (ST), FEteh Nagar Qircle, !-lydg1gbafl ffpral pivisign, Hydeiahad : -'i : The State of TelaRqana, repreEented by its Prinsipal Secretary, Revenue Dpparlnient (Qommdrcial Taxg6), Telangana $ecrQ!{ria!, Fyderhbao.' '..: ]. :' : :".::. , '1,. "REgPaTDENTF AryP 1 2 Eetitigo un(qr A(isle 2?6 q{ lhe Cggslitutisn o{ lndlp Prcy!,ng th?l in IhF 9i1Cyrm3fane.!! stEtqp ip the affidayii filed ther-ewith, lhe tlish ?..8urt 'fay !F plggsed to iique a [Vrit gr order or (i1ectiq4 partigulally ong ip thB gature of Wrlt it nlrndrrnus setting aside the iqplgled ltrow ,Caup3 NqtlCt Efl!. $ssessmqnt Or$er pass"q( by fhe fir$l reqpondgnl in Fgrm 9SI lRe ; OTt ln Referq6sq Na.ZD3O07e$9413231, daled 10.07 2024, v.ige File Nq ?831?019'2p, in laisipg q ggryand of lax of $sa,62,729l-, (C9ST amourltins Iq Rs,a,31,Ep4l- * SEST aqrounlils 1si nl.?,sr,Ao4t-), tor lhe tEI peilqa ?,Qf o-(!r t!!l rra,ye bgeo yptgadgd in the GST portal without either Fhysicallv n9r oiqjlqltv iiq!"d Wnilt:t it pgntrary to tle Rule 26 (3)of the CGST Rules 2017, ae lllegg! ,alQiltqrv, ab inilig {S.id, cg,ntrqry !o the provisionq of QGST Aqt and fute1, 2017 an! fGST Aclntt{ By!-es, 2017,'cpntr:Ary to fhe law laid down Qy the judiciat pronoungement of fhiq Hcn'ble CoiJ( and f{on'ble High Cou(s of Delhi, Bombay and Andhra Pradesh and.without authority of law and 5 6 l IA NO| 1 0F 2025 Petition underr liection '1 51 CPC praying that in the circum stances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court r--9ay'59 pleqsed staY of all further proqqedin$F arising in puisuaQce of thg impqgned Assgssment or6er qassQ( uv ihu first respondqnt in F,qrm GST ORc - 07 in RefereQgg No ZD36O72i0 41323t , {4ted 10.07 2024, vide File No 383/2019-2Q, for the lex period -2019-20 Ggunssl for the PstitiongS; SR!. S, ltlRl B4EU e ou nsql ro 1 lhe Ree Ronee "ts i sq9133,fi ? 33#iia1 stare ra 5 The cqurt r4gde the follgwing; cOqlUON 9[0en 6 (' <. I I I , THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF. JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION Nos.6648 7427 8O5O and 8156 of 20.25 COMMON ORDER (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sttjog paut) Sri S. Suri Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.6648, 8O5O and 8156 of 2025 and Sri Kohir Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.7427 of 2025. Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, for the respondents-Stat Tax in all the writ petitions. 2. Regard being had to the similitude of the questions involved, on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, the matters were 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.21 101 of 2024 e batch, dated 28.02.2025. t 7 4 Accorclingly, the impugned notice(s) and order(s) in these Writ Petitions are set aside. The conseque ntial bank attachment(s), if any, shall also stand revoked. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to issue fresh show cause notice(s)/ ord er(s) in accordance with law and, for r rndertaking this exercise afresh, the limitation will not be a hurdle for the respondents. 5 The Writ Petitions are disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. No costs Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL //TRUE COPYII REG T i SECTION OFFICER o, 1 J 4. 6. 6, Iffi#;:tj"t ()ommissioner (ST), Rvder Nasar - 1 circte, Hyderabad Rurat, 7II BM bs ') HIGH COUR,T DATED:26t0312025 ,) F,. ,AT C,{ q5 I,3 01 2825 o * t r!

WP.Nos,6648 ,7427,8050 AND 8156 OF ZOZI DISPOSING OF ALL THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS 8 Lb>

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.