M/S. Sandhya Constructions And Estates Private Limited vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of (St)-Iii

Held

The Court held that the impugned show cause notice dated 05.02.2022 and the order dated 28.03.2024, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of (ST)-III, were to be set aside. This decision was based on the parties' fair submission that these documents lacked physical or digital signatures. The Court noted that it had previously set aside similar orders in Writ Petition No. 8014 of 2024 for the same reason, reserving liberty to the respondents to pass fresh orders. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned 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 disposed of the Writ Petition without costs. The issues concerning the validity of notifications and Government Orders extending time limits were not explicitly decided as the matter was resolved on the ground of lack of signatures in the primary impugned documents.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sandhya Constructions and Estates Private Limited, challenged a show cause notice dated 05.02.2022 (Reference no. 2D3602220017015) and an order dated 28.03.2024 (Reference no. 2D3603240409478), both issued by the Deputy Commissioner of (ST)-III, Enforcement Wing, Hyderabad. The petitioner also challenged notifications and Government Orders extending time limits for passing orders. The core of the petitioner's grievance, as revealed during arguments, was that both the show cause notice and the final order lacked physical or digital signatures. The respondents included the Deputy Commissioner, the State of Telangana, the Union of India, and the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs.

Key Issues

1. Whether the show cause notice dated 05.02.2022 and the order dated 28.03.2024, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of (ST)-III, are void, arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India, due to the absence of physical or digital signatures. 2. Whether the notifications and Government Orders extending the time limit for passing orders are without authority of law, ultra vires Section 73(10) and Section 168A of the GST 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 show cause notice and order were illegal and void due to the lack of signatures. They also contended that the notifications and Government Orders extending time limits were beyond the statutory authority and violated constitutional provisions. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment records that the parties fairly submitted that the impugned show cause notice and order did not contain any physical or digital signature. This implies the revenue did not contest this specific factual assertion.