Tirumala Music Centre Private Limited vs. State Of Telangana

WP/10874/2024HC TelanganaGSTCNR HBHC01021061202419 March 2025Bench: SUJOY PAUL,RENUKA YARA7 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioners, Tirumala Music Centre Private Limited, filed writ petitions challenging a notification and a show cause notice/final assessment order issued under the Telangana Goods and Services Tax (TGST) Act, 2017, and the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. The petitioners argued that the notification extending the limitation period for passing orders under Section 73 was ultra vires and arbitrary. They also contended that the show cause notice and/or final assessment order were non-est in law due to lack of authentication, being barred by limitation, and lacking jurisdiction. The revenue authorities are the respondents. The tax period in dispute is the financial year 2018-19.

Held

The Court noted the submission by both the petitioner's counsel and the Special Government Pleader for State Tax that the impugned notice(s) and order(s) were unsigned. In light of this, and following a common order passed in a similar batch of writ petitions (W.P. No. 21101 of 2024 & batch, dated 28.02.2025), the Court set aside the impugned notice(s) and order(s) in these writ petitions. Consequently, any consequential bank attachments were also revoked. The Court reserved liberty for the respondents to issue fresh show cause notice(s)/order(s) in accordance with law, and stated that the limitation period would not be a hurdle for the respondents in undertaking this exercise. The Court explicitly mentioned that the writ petitions were disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Notification in G.O. Ms No. 118/2023 dated 25.08.2023, and the corresponding Notification No. 09/2023 issued by the 6th Respondent, extending the limitation for passing orders under Section 73 of the TGST/CGST Act, 2017, for the financial year 2018-19 to 31.03.2024, are ultra vires Section 168(4) of the TGST/CGST Act, 2017, and Article 14 of the Constitution of India? The petitioner argued that the extension notification is beyond the scope of Section 168(4) and is arbitrary. 2. Whether the impugned show cause notice dated 31.01.2024 (or final assessment order dated 30.04.2024) for the financial year 2018-19 is non-est in law for lack of authentication, being barred by limitation, and lacking jurisdiction? The petitioner contended that the absence of authentication renders the notice/order invalid, and it is also time-barred and issued without jurisdiction. The respondents' arguments were not explicitly detailed in the provided text, but their participation implies a defense of the validity of the notification and the subsequent proceedings.

Sections Cited

Section 73, Section 168(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[ 34461 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdictionl WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY.OF,MARCH ''-- TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL THE HONOURABLE St\'ii fuSTICE RENUKA YARA ION N WRIT O: 108 PETITI 74 0F 2024 ON &1 Nos. 10874 0976 0F 2024 WRIT PETIT Between: - ilHnl's, Ui3:,,","#:?#x6:?"''[ts,o"3i" 61 1ot27 l1}5l1o, Municipal Colony' ..'PETITIONER o*?. ,,r," of Telangana' Btp 9Y i1t PJil"3al secretary to Government' Revenue (CT-ll) Department. : /, To Government FAC, ' H",gT:i3?:ili33,*'.:fltt1"?I.EH':"'fi l*;o"o .*:S'"1i?i1P,:Tn6ilT""li'f.',ii'fi ,l?n);fl +3,Y"?*,""c.'charminar - yiH&:I1',f ft"i".'6"f;,i:B1ll,j'i.'":"|.:"#i?i x'lf'#"i.i:liatBel' Deeartment 5 Goods a1{ s-e-rv1q9lai."*".i1,?]'r5,,"'lili'r'il:?*,tgJli.:"?:1"ji};,fil$l'""" Secretariat, 5th Floc diil'iiishi' pr"""' r'i"* Delhi' 1 10001 6. cenrrar Board of rndirect raxes and customs, RePnr?,i31[it3x#]'3X1[I3X;, " ili;i;ilv;i Finance' Department of Revenue' N New D-elhi' 11ooo1 "'RESP.NDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High ":.u* rnl.l O" pleased to issue a Writ' Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, a) declaring the Notification in G'O Ms'No '11812023 dated 25 - 08 -2023 issued by the 2nd Respondent and the related/correspond ing I Notification No ( r9/2 t 23 issued by the 6th Respondent in terms of Section 16g4 of the TGST/C(iS:1 ,\rt, 2017, extending the limitation for par;sinc of order under Section 73 for ,re financiar year, 2o1g-1g ro 31-03-2024 as urlra vires the section 168,4 of the TGST/GGST Act, 2017 and arso rnanifesfl / arbitrary and violative of Artir:*, -lz of the Constitution of India and set aside th : same, and b) declaring the lnrp.rgyned Show Cause Notice dated 31_01-..2021_ par,sed by the 3rd Respondent in i:CtRl\1 NO. DRC _ 01 bearing Reference t,Jo. ilD3(i0124046961G for the Financie') '(t'ar 2o1B - 19, purporting the show .ause Nltice as being non-est in raw for thr: rack of any authentication and even o hen.rise barred by limitation, without itr isdiction, completely vague, baseless irnd set aside the sa me. (Prayer is Amendr:cr as per Court Order dt:19-0 3-2025, Vide l.A.No.2 of 2O24, in W.P. No.10874 'tt itt)24) lA NO: 1 oF 2024 Reference No. ZD3liO1 214046961G for the Financial year 2C1B - 1g lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition urd,,rr Si,tction .1 5.1 CpC praying that in the cir in the affidavit ftl,:c in srupport of the petition, the High Court further stay all pro .€,.6;.rs in pursuance of the lmpugnecl S dt.31-01-2024 issur,,i ry the 3.d Respondent in FORM NO. in FORlvl GST DFt(r ,- 07 bearing Reference No 2024 for the Finanoir, I y=ar 2O1g_19. cJmsfances stated nray lrs pleased to h f,w ( )a use Notice t)RC - 01 bearing 2D3604240s1 8: 9U dt.3o_4- Petition unrrer S:cl jon 151 cpc praying that in the circL mstirnces stated in the affidavit filed n r;,pport of the petition, the High Cout m ry b,r pleased to further stay all procered rgs in pursuance of rhe impugned firrar assessment order Counsel for the petitic rrerr: SRI T. PRADYOTH Counsel for the Respor dent Nos.1 to 3: SRI SWAROOP OOR|L[.A, SPECIAL GOVT PLEADER FOR SiATE TAX 9*1":1.1:l!!: Res;:,onctent No.4: sRt K. ARVTND KUMAR, cENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUIV{;,:L FOR UNION OF INDIA & Counsel forthe Respondent Nos'5 and 6: SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES' SC FOR CBIC wRlT PETITION NO.10976 0F 2024 Between: Tirumala Music Centre Private Limit-e4 ^16t10127 t1O5l'10' Municipal Colony' i,i;dkp"t, Hvderabad, Telangana' 500036 ...PETITIONER AND 'l . State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government' Revenue (CT-ll) Department, Secretariat, Hy0eraDao' 2. The Chief Secretary and Special Chief Secretary To Government FAC' ' nei"-nr'je tci-iri o.jpartm"ht, Secretariat, Hyderabad' 3. The Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes)' \tqfafqet 2 Circle' Charminar -' Oirision, 11th Floor, Gagan Vihar, Hyderabad' lelangana' 4. Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary' IVlinisW of Finance' Department of Revenue, t tortn atocx, bl;i';i"sd;i;;idi' trtew o'etni' 1 1oo01 ' 5. Goods and Service I ax council, Repres-ented.by its secretary, GST Council " 5#fir;i;i,-sfli r]oor, ro-wer ir' .r""Gn Bharati Building' Janpath Road' -onnaught Place, New Delhi, 110001 ' 6. Central Board of lndirect Taxes and-Customs' Reoresented bv its Chairman' Ministry of Finance, d#,;ffi;t "i R"'"ii'"' r'to|.tn Block' cehtral Secretariat' New Delhi, 110001 ...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, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, a) declaring the Notification in G O' Ms No' 1'18/2023 dated 25lr,gt2o23 issued by the 2nd Respondent and the related/corresponding Notification No. 0g/2023 issued by the 6th Respondent in terms of section 1684 of the TGST/CGST Acl, 2017, extending the limitation for passing of order under SectionT3forthefinancialyear2ol}-lgto3lt03t2o24asultraVirestheSection l684oftheTGST/CGSTAct,2OlTandalsomanifestlyarbitraryandviolativeof Article't4oftheConstitutionoflndiaandsetasidethesame'andb)declaringthe lmpugned final assessment order passed by the 3'd Respondent in ORM GST DRC-o7bearingReferenceNo.zD360424092166Adated30.04.2024forthe FinancialYear2ol}-lg,purportingthefinalassessmentorderasbeingnon-estin law for the lacti rf :trry authentication and even otherwi:;e barre J by without jurisdicticrr, 1:1r1npls1s;y vague, baseless and set aside flte sitme. limitation, IA NO 't oF 2024 IANo: 30F 2024 Petition under Ii,lcti the arridavit rir",, ,, _..-ppoo,l ::[H:1,,:r]i,:" the circu,sr€nces stated in rurther stay urr pr,rr,.,rngr,, *;;:";r;;",j^ co.rrt n,av ,e preased ro dated 31r01/2022 i,sr)c;r,^"';;;":^:^-vr trre ImpugnerJ strow cause Notice Reference No. Zt)3i;0.1 i 40,, ,n" ard Respondent in FORIVI NO. DR( Ol bearing 44791J for the Financiat year 2018 _ 1g Petition uncle. St( roti the arr dav t r reo n s,,poorl :: [T*:::':rru,:::;.ff i :l]":::"J * further stay a' proce erli^gs in pursuance

"i ,*lrrrnr"d fir,ar assessment order passed by the 3rcr l:iespondent in FoRM GST DRC-07 be,rrin(r Reference No. 2D360424092166t, ci 3C-4_20 24 for theFinancial yeat 2O1B_19. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI T. PRADYOTH c o u nse r f o r t h e R e s p, o rr, r e n t N os r10,l.rSiiyi ['"^.J.RH h1]o r. r* 3s'illTl,fi i lll. Jff fi ,J[ I' l,#,fi,r#l 5 j fixr N D Ku M A R, c E N r R A I Counsel for the Responde nt Nos.S and 6: :3'.%JlT3'ERNANDES The Court made the fc,llorving: COMMON ORDER

TIIE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION Nos.10874 & 1 O976 of 2o24 COMMON ORDER (Per the Hon'ble the Acttng Chief Justice SujoA paut): Sri T. Pradyoth, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government pleader for State Tax, Sri K. Arvind Kumar, learned Central Government Counsel for Union of India and Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, for the respondents.

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

Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special f Government Pleader for State Tax submitted that since the { impugned notice(s) and order(s) are unsigned, the same may be set aside in rriew of the common order passed in W.p.No.211O1 of 2024 & batch, dated 28.02.2025. --=.-F l

Accorrl rrgiy, the impugned notice(s) and order s) in these Writ Petir.icr s are set aside. The consecuer tial bank attachment(r;) if any, shall also stand re'.'okr:d Liberty is reserved tc t lLe respondents to issue frt:sh st ou'' cause notice(s)/crc er s;) in accordance with law and, fcr u ndertaking this exercrs,, al-esh, the limitation will not bt: a hurl1e for the respondents.

The \r/ - t Petitions are disposed of u ithout expressing aly opinion on he merits of the case. No costs,. In tt:rlc t:utory applications, if aly pendi -rg, shall also stand clos,:cl. //// \ I;D/. V.KAVITHA DEPUTY REGTSTRAR__ /,/ \-_ SEcTION OFFICER To, 1 lr The Princr: ra.. Secrelary to Government, nevenqf (C T-ll I Dep artrrent, Secretaria.. 5i : te of Telangana, Hyderabad. The Chierf ::!Sl?tgrV and Special Chief Secretary, To Governr rent FAC, Revenue r {:ll -l') Departmeht, Secretariat, Hydeiabact. The Ass,st:rnt Oommissioner, (State Taxes), Malakpet 2l)irc, t, Charminar Division, 1 'tfr Floor, Gagan Vihar, Hyderab'ad, Telanqan; The.Seoel.ary Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, Depalme,rt of Revenue, North Bloc-.. I t,ntral Secretariat, New -Delhi, 1100d1 Ihe Se_cre, a ry Goods and Service Tax Council, GS-f Co unci Secretariat, 5th Floor, Tcw:rr li, Jeevan Bharati Building, Janpath Road, Cronn rugfitFLce, -' New Delhi 11i)10'l The Cha rn.ra r lVlinistry of Finance, Cenlral Board of lndi-ect laxes and gu:tgmsr L.'e ) lrtment of Revenue, North Block, Cenlral S ecr€ tariat, New Delhi, '1 10CrC'

One CC '.o Sri 'l-. Pradyoth, Advocate tOpUCl B Iryo CC .o l-r, Special GP for State Tax, Hiqh Court for t.re S ate of I elangar a at ryderabad[OUT]

One CC tc S'i t(. Aravind Kumar, Central Government Cc,uns,:l for Union of lndia[OPIJ(. ] 10.One CC lo llr --ominic Fernandes, SC for CBIT[OpUC] 11 Two cD ()c l"-'; pAQ 2 J 4 5 6 TJ KV

\ t j HIGH COUIR'r DATED:19t0:lt2O2S ORDER WP.Nos.10BZ,4 & 10976 of 2024 <a 4 ;R rrlE I - ,-i ,'.r. It() '.L 7 4 ,luu M ((\( za 1\* \ .d+ o TT DISPOSING CTE THE WR|T PETtTtoNS WITHOUT CO$TS t^, ,( 5 >\

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.