M/S.Pnr Interiors vs. The Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, M/s. PNR Interiors and M/s. New Vision Infra, filed writ petitions before the Telangana High Court challenging Show Cause Notices (SCNs) and subsequent orders issued by the Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes). The petitioners argued that the SCNs/Orders were invalid because they were unsigned, not digitally signed, or verified via e-signature as required by Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017. Alternatively, they contended that the notices and orders were barred by limitation. A further contention was that the orders were passed solely on the ground of non-filing of replies or non-attendance at personal hearings, which they argued was unsustainable. The petitioners sought to have these notices and orders set aside or, alternatively, remitted back for re-adjudication.
Held
The Court noted that the learned counsel for the petitioners sought to withdraw the writ petitions unconditionally. The other side had no objection to this request. Consequently, the Court dismissed both writ petitions as withdrawn unconditionally. No order was made as to costs. The operative directions were to dismiss the petitions as withdrawn. No specific findings were made on the issues of unsigned notices, limitation, or the grounds for passing the orders, as the petitions were withdrawn before adjudication on these points.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned Show Cause Notices (SCNs) and Orders are liable to be set aside for being unsigned, not digitally signed, or verified through e-signature, as envisaged under Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017? 2. Whether the impugned SCNs and Orders are barred by limitation, as contended by the petitioners? 3. Whether the impugned Orders, passed solely on the ground of the petitioner's failure to file a reply or attend a personal hearing, are sustainable? Petitioner's Arguments: - The SCNs/Orders are invalid due to non-compliance with Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, regarding digital signatures. - The SCNs/Orders are barred by limitation, citing Notifications No. 09/2023-CT and 56/2023-CT. - The orders are unsustainable as they were passed without considering the merits, solely based on the petitioner's non-response. - Alternatively, the matter should be remitted for re-adjudication. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state respondents.
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 rgi-l l:j \
r : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA lIIRIT PETITION Nos.25231 and 271OL of 2o24 COMMON ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujog Poul) Sri T.N.Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to withdraw these writ petitions unconditionaliy.
The other side has no objection
Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn unconditionally. No order as to costs Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. a' rd //' MOHD. ISMAIL ASSI TANT REGISTRAR TION OFFICER To, BSR BS '
One CC to SRI NAGENDRA REDDY TAILOR, Advocate [OPUC] 2, One CC to SRI SIVAVENUGOPAL REDDY.N, Advocate [OPUC]
One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUIVIAR DEPU lY SOLICITOR GENERIAL OF lNDIA, High Court fo1 the $tate of Telangana at Hyderabad [OPUCJ
Two COs to SP_L GP FOR STATE TAX, High Court for the State gf Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]
Two Cp Copieo
HIGH COURT DATED: 10102t2025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.25231 and 27101 of 2024 {' //t /s ./z r'a=:: '- r,-- l: 51,'i !!ii tt 7 APi' -\/ :r r..t tr D.lg o a1 ,.'.t\i- r--== ::r2' DISMISSING BOTH THE WR|T pETITtCiiNS AS WITHDRAWN, WITHOUT COSTS , r,. ,L
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.