M/S. Coppertaurus Technologies (INDIA) Private Limited vs. The Appellate Joint Commissioner(St)

WP/3225/2025HC TelanganaGSTCNR HBHC01072605202406 February 2025Bench: SUJOY PAUL,RENUKA YARA5 pages

For Petitioner: SRI VENKATRAM REDDY MANTURFor Respondent: sRr swARoop ooRrLLA, SPL GOVT PLEADER FOR STATE TAX

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Coppertaurus Technologies (India) Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of its appeal by the Appellate Joint Commissioner (ST) and the Summary of Order issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST). The petitioner contended that the appeal rejection order dated 24.10.2024 and the Summary of Order dated 23.05.2023 were uploaded without physical or digital signatures, violating Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The tax period in dispute was April 2019 to March 2020. The petitioner also argued that the Appellate Joint Commissioner lacked the power to condone delays beyond four months. The petitioner sought to declare these orders unenforceable and set aside.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition based on a consensus reached by the parties. It directed the petitioner to deposit 100% of the tax liability, as assessed by the Assessing Officer, with the Department within four weeks. The petitioner was also directed to approach the Tribunal within three months from its constitution/establishment. The Tribunal is to decide the second appeal in accordance with the law. Crucially, the Court stated that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner until the decision of the Tribunal, subject to the deposit of 100% of the tax liability. The Court explicitly mentioned that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal order dated 24.10.2024, rejecting the petitioner's appeal, and the Summary of Order dated 23.05.2023, both uploaded without physical or digital signatures, are contrary to Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, rendering them unenforceable. 2. Whether the Appellate Joint Commissioner had the power to condone the delay in filing the appeal beyond four months, as contended by the petitioner. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the orders were not signed as per Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, making them non-est in the eyes of law and unenforceable. They also contended that the Appellate Joint Commissioner exceeded their jurisdiction by condoning a delay beyond the statutory limit of four months. The petitioner relied on the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions of the CGST/SGST Act and Rules. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue respondents.

Sections Cited

Rule 26(3), Section 107, Rule 142(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

/ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD . (Special Original Jurisdictibn) THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE.THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION NO: 3225 OF 2025 13446 | ...PETITIONER Between: AND 1 M/s. Coppertaurus Technologies (lndia) P1ivate Limited, Plot No.137145, Madhapui, Patrika Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangan-500081, Rep. by its Managing Director, Revathy Vinnakota. 2 The Appeltate Joint Commissioner (ST), Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Madhapur - lll, Hyderabad Rural Hyderabad. 3. The State of Telangana, Rep- by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (CT) Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4. The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi - '1 10 001. 5. The Centrat Board of lndirect Taxes and Customs, Rep. by its Chairman, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue. North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi - 100 001. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia prufri tf,rt in tf," circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ of [Vandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in rejecting the appeal order dated 24t1012o24 the same uploaded in the GST portal without either physically nor digitally signed which is contrary in Rule 26 (3) of the CGST Rules 2017 ' the appeal filed by the Petitioner under Section 107 of the Act, as the 1st Respondent has no power to condone the delay beyond four months, and the Summary of the Order in FORM GST DRC-07 of the 2nd Respondent, daled 2310512023 passed for the tax period April, 20'19 to March,2020 uploaded in the GST portal without either physically nor digitally signed which is contrary in Rule 26 (3) of the CGST Rules 2017' as rerl:r,v unenforceabre and non-est in the eye of raw and set_aside the same, and as ittegat arbitrary arinitio voio co-ntirry ,o tn" prorrisions of GGST Act and Rures 20.r r'under_the centrar cil;;;''s""rvice Tax At>t 2017 and the State Goods and {lc,rvice I* A:, zoiz, ,rlrOiir"i,'contrary to tire provisions of the CGST/SGST A3t 2017, and without "ren'isrling Form GST DRC_01A as contemplated under Rure 142 (1A) of Rurei z6ii, wi*rout jurisdiction and in violation of Princit,leis of Natural Lr'.ti"" ,nJ "*iuq Rejection p-.".ii. g. ;r'ir,. r .t Respondent, d;il ;?71'J,#f ll5;i["l,lt"^1 GST Portat and sunr-mary of the ordei Jri"o zi6i7o23 of the 2nd Respondent. lA NO: 1 oF 2025 Petition under section 1 51. cpc praying that in the.circumst;a nces stated in the affidavit fired in support of the peiitio;, ir'" iign court may be preased to suspend the operati.n of the Summary of th; o;de;, d ated 2310512023 passed by the 2nd Respondent for the tax. perioJ npiit'iO/S to March, 2C20 under the centrar Goods and liervice Tax Act ioir'{ri'ti. s'tate Goods and Service Tax 4ct2017, pending riisposar of the above w;i p;iil"; as otherwise, the petitioner will be put to severe: loss and hardship. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI VENKATRAM REDDY MANTUR counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: sRr swARoop ooRrLLA, SPL GOVT PLEADER FOR STATE TAX counsel for the Respondent No.4: sRr B. MUKHERJEE REp. FoR SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. soLtctroR GENERAL cir truorn Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES. SR. SC FOR CBIC

The Court made the following: ORDER

t) THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKAYARA UIRIT PETITION No.3225 of 2o25 ORDER (Per the Hon'ble the Ading Chief Justice Suioy Paul): Sri M. Venkatram Reddy, Iearned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Swaroop Oorilla, Iearned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, for respondent Nos.1 to 3; Sri B. ' 'l Mukherjee, learned counsel representing Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent No.4 and Sri Dominic Fernaldes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, for respondent No.5. 2. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties reached to a consensus. .It is agreed that this petition may be disposed of in terms of order passed in W'P'No'3600 of 2024. 3. Accordingly, as agreed, the Writ Petition is disposed of, by directing the petitioner to deposit lOo/o of the ta4,'liability as assessed by the Assessing Officer and deposit the same with the Department within four weeks from today' The petitioner shall approach the Tribunal within three months from the date of its constitution/establishment. The Tribunal shall decide the second. appeal in aci:ord.ance with law' Further, subject to depositing lOo/o of the tax liability within aforesaid time' no 2 coercive action be taken against the petitioner till the decision of the Tribunal in the second appeal. It is made clezrr that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits ,tf the case. No costs. InterJocutory applications, if any pending, shail also stand closed. o //// . K. AMMAJI 1TANT REGISTRAR SI \i;;ON OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 The Appellate Joint Commissione(ST), Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), It/adhapur - lll, Hyderabad Rural. Hyderabad. The Princical Secretary, Revenue (CT) Department, The St:rte of Telangana, Telangana liecretariat, Hyderabad. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, The Union of lndia, North Block, New Delhi - 1 '10 001 . The Chairrnan, IVinistry of Finance, The Central Board of lndirect Taxes and Customs, Department of Revenue. North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi - 100 001 . One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, (Deputy Solicitor General of lndia), High Courl. for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OPUC] One CC to SRI VENKATRAIV REDDY MANTUR, Advocate .OPUCI One CC to SiRl DOMINIC FERNANDES, SR. SC for CBIC IOPUC] Two CCs to Sri SWAROOP OORILLA, Spl Govt Pleader For State Tax, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] t) 7 8I '10.Two CD Ccpies BN GJP l i I I

\ HIGH COURT DATED:0610212025 ORDER WP.No.3225 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS /.aa:=r = -/,-. , ::. I. ,,4- oEs,. -;." u t,'-- i_1 ! 1 li[r, tt:il v :1r 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.