M/S. Bsk Agencies vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court held that the impugned show cause notice dated January 31, 2024, and the order dated April 27, 2024, were liable to be set aside. This decision was based on the concession made by the parties that these documents lacked physical or digital signatures. The Court noted that it had previously set aside similar orders in WP No. 8014 of 2024 for the same reason. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned show cause notice and order, reserving liberty to the Department to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law from the appropriate stage. The petitioner was also granted liberty to take all possible defenses in accordance with law. The Court did not specifically address the constitutional validity of the notifications as the primary issue leading to the setting aside of the order was the lack of signatures.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. BSK Agencies, filed a writ petition challenging an order issued in Form DRC-07 by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Warangal Urban-II, dated April 27, 2024. The petitioner also challenged certain notifications extending time limits for passing orders. The core of the dispute appears to stem from the validity of these orders and notifications. The procedural history indicates that the parties agreed to dispose of the matter based on a previous order of this Court in WP No. 8014 of 2024, concerning similar issues.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order issued in Form DRC-07, dated April 27, 2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) is void, arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, and violative of the principles of natural justice and constitutional provisions (Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265)? 2. Whether Notification No. 09/2023-C.T dated March 31, 2023, GO Ms. No. 118 dated April 25, 2023, Notification No. 56/2023-CT dated December 28, 2023, and GO Ms. No. 170 dated December 30, 2023, extending the time limit for passing orders, are without authority of law, ultra vires to Section 73(10) and Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, and 265 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order and show cause notice lacked physical or digital signatures, rendering them invalid. They also contended that the notifications extending time limits were beyond the statutory authority and unconstitutional. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue or state respondents. However, their presence and participation in the proceedings suggest they would have defended the validity of the impugned order and notifications.