M/S.Vani Enterprises vs. The Superintendent (Central Tax)

WP/8236/2025HC TelanganaGSTCNR HBHC01071995202420 March 2025Bench: SUJOY PAUL,RENUKA YARA5 pages

For Respondent: SRI DOMINIC FERNANDESi, (senior standing counsel fo. CBIC), Counset for the Respondent No.2: SRI B. MUKHERJEE REp, STi 36fltHEH, -[HXf[;i, ", o

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Vani Enterprises, filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court challenging an Order-in-Original dated March 29, 2024, and Form GST DRC-07 dated April 13, 2024, passed by the Superintendent (Central Tax). These orders levied CGST/SGST and penalty under Section 73(10) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, for the tax period 2018-19. The petitioner contended that these orders were passed without a Document Identification Number (DIN) and signature, without issuing Form GST DRC-01A as contemplated under Rule 142(1A), and were barred by limitation. The petitioner also challenged certain notifications extending the limitation period. The respondents included the Superintendent (Central Tax), the Union of India through the Ministry of Finance, and the Chairman of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC).

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner's primary contention that Form GST DRC-07 was not issued appeared to be incorrect, as the revenue produced a document dated 13.04.2024 which was Form GST DRC-07. The Court further observed that the impugned Order-in-Original is appealable under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Since an efficacious statutory remedy was available to the petitioner, the Court declined to interfere in the writ petition. Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the 1st Respondent in passing the Order-in-Original dated 29.03.2024 and Form GST DRC-07 dated 13.04.2024 for the tax period 2018-19, without DIN and signature, and without issuing Form GST DRC-01A as per Rule 142(1A), is arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and barred by limitation under Section 73(10) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, particularly in light of Notifications No. 9 of 2023, 56 of 2023, and G.O.Ms.No. 18 extending the limitation period, making the orders illegal and ultra vires Section 168A of the Act and Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution? Petitioner's arguments: The orders were passed without mandatory procedural requirements like DIN, signature, and issuance of DRC-01A, rendering them invalid. The assessment was barred by limitation, and the extension notifications were ultra vires Section 168A of the Act and unconstitutional. Revenue's arguments: The Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC pointed to the Form GST DRC-07 dated 13.04.2024, indicating its issuance. The Court noted that the Order-in-Original is appealable under the CGST Act, 2017.

Sections Cited

Section 73(10), Rule 142(1A), Section 168A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[ 3446 ] H|GH couRr.?+ IT#[AIi8F rE:ANGANA (speclai'oiiginal Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH ' ""'ii,iio'inousAND AND rwENrY FlvE THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL rHE HoNouRAeLe s#iJsrlcE RENUKA YARA PRESENT WRIT PETITION NO: 82360F2 o25 Between: M/sVaniEnterprises,,l2HS;Yi'l3lli3l{"o"fJ"Elt"""ffi 'VbTi.:l$%""tei- 500045 Telangana State Kep uy rr'> r,ror rqvrr rY ' - ' ...PETIT|ONER The Superintendent (Central Tax)' Yousufguda Range' Baniara Hills Division' +*:",1,"?Sl ", rndia, Rep. by its secretary, Minisrrv of Finance, North Block' New Delhi -110001 . . r-..^^ ^^n.,,cr.rmc. Reo. bv its Chairman' il*iiti+ ^'"""tg 3'"J:';1":1,'"1'€:"313":il:'i'T8i"Txlpi#t'lis;cretariat' 'New o'etni - 100 001. ...RESPoNDENTS AND 1 2 3 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 an appropriate writ' order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of lvlandamus or any other appropriate Writ or order or Direction declaring- (1) the action of the 1't Respondent in passing the Order-in- Original, dated 29 03'2024 and Form GST DRC-07' dated 13 04 2024 without DIN and without signature' in levying CGST/SGST and Penalty under Section 73(10) of the CGST/SGST Act 2017' without even issuing Form GST DRC-01A as contemplated under Rule 142(1A) of the Rules 2017 ' fot the tax period 2018- 19 under the CGST/SGST Act 201 7' as arbitrary' contrary to the provisions of the CGST/SGST Act' 2017, patently barred by limitation' without jurisdiction as per Section 73( 1 O) of the CGST/SGS T Acl 2017 ' more particularly Notifications issued by the 4th Respondent vide No'9 of 2023 daled 31'03-2023' No-56 of ;;;;;, z8-12-2o)3 extendins the period of limitation bv the 3'd Respondent I I l I I 1l.i I and G.o.lvls.No - 18, 'dated 25.O8.2023 issued by the 2nd Respc,ndent extendin s the Iimitation I)er od to make the assessment, as illegal, ultra vires to Section 168A of the C(;S-|/SGST Act 2017 and contrary to Articte 1 4, 19'1)(g) and 265 of the constitutio, of rndia (2) Notification No.g of 2023 dated 31 .O::\.2024 and 56 of 2023 dated 2a .1..).2023 issued by the 3rdRespondent, G.O.Mr;.No. 1 18, dated 25.08.2023 issueJ by the Government of Telangana as ultra vires to Section 168A of the CGST/SGST Act ZOlt and consequen y set al;icle the Order-in- Original, dated 29 03.2OZ4 and Form GST DRC_07, d;ted 1 3.04 2024 for the tax period2O18-19 un(ier the CGST/SGST Act2O1T,as null and void IA NO:1 OF 2025 petition under Section 151 CpC praying that in the circun stances stated in the affidavit filecl in support of the petition, the High Court mity be pleased to , suspend the ole'ation of the order-in-originar, dated 2g.03.2lza ano rorn] GST DRC-.2, dirted 1 3.04.2024 passed by the 1.t Respondent, fo" the tax period 2O1B-19 under the CGST/SGST Act 2017, pending disposal of he above Writ Petition, as otherra,ise, the petitioner will be put to severe loss and rardship Counsel for the peritioner: SRl. V. RAJESHWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&3: SRI DOMINIC FERNANDESi (senior standing counsel fo. CBIC) Counset for the Respondent No.2: SRI B. MUKHERJEE REp STi 36fltHEH,-[HXf[;i,",,o

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.a236 of'2O25 ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Acttng Chief Justice Sujoy Paut) Sri V.Rajeshwara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for ,rCBIC, for respondent Nos. 1 and 3; and Sri B. Mukherjee, learned counsel representing Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent No.2. 2. Heard on admission.

The opening argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the GST DRC-07 was not issued and therefore, the petitioner cannot prefer an appeal and directly approach this Court. In addition, it is argued that DRC-O 1 was also not provided to the petitioner. 4 . Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3, on the other hald, drawn the attention of this Court to the document dated 13.O4.2O24, which is Form GST

2 DRC - 07. Thus,, the first contention of the petitione:r appears to be incorrect. 'I'ht, impllgll Order-in-Original is appe alable under the Central Goocs and Services Tax Act, 2077. Sincr: a statutory efficacious renrr:rly is ava able to the petitioner, we lecline the interference. Lib.rty is reserved to the petitioner to av;dr the said remed5r. : Accordingl.r the writ petition is disposed of. No rrder as to costs Miscellanr:or r s petitions pending, if an5r, 5[s11 staer I closed. . K. SREERAMA MURTHY PEPUTY REGISTRAR //// To, SECTION OFFICER ,,} 1 \ The Super ntr.ndent (Central Tax), yousufguda Range, Banjarz; Hills Division, Hyderabac. The Secrelar,i, Union of lndia, lvlnistry of Finance, North Bktck, New Delhi _ 110001. The Chairnan, Central Board of lndirect Taxes and Customs, l.linistry of Fin^ance, Decartment of Revenue, North Slo"k, C"ntio'i3;cre ;te riat, New Delhi - 100 001 One CC to SRl. V. RAJESHWAR RAO Advocate IOpUCI 9! g_Cg- t9 S R t. D O I\, I N I C FE R NAN D E S t i"ni.i it*Oi^-g' co u n r; et f or cBrc) [oP Ja] 9.19 9C tO SRI. GADI PRAVEEN KUI\,4AR, DY.SOLICITOR I3I:.NERAL OF rNDrA [OPIJC] Two CD Copies B I\/l 2 4 5 6 7 w \.

HIGH COI.,RT DATED:2010312025 ORDER WP.No.8236 of 2025 o3 .tt E S I/t r€ 0 ti l4AY 2u25 t or ( f {' !i: s' nr cttF_O DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS q "'!(a jY*^" 11-\L\'" l I I I I I I I i !

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.