Kamal Nayan Chowdhary vs. Assistant Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court held that both the impugned show cause notice dated 01.06.2022 and the order dated 30.12.2023 lacked physical or digital signatures. Relying on a previous decision in W.P.No.8014 of 2024, where a similar issue of unsigned orders was addressed, the Court found this to be a valid ground for setting aside the impugned order. The Court noted that the parties had agreed to dispose of the matter in terms of the order passed in W.P.No.8014 of 2024. Consequently, the Court set aside the show cause notice and the 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 issue regarding the validity of the extension notifications was implicitly addressed by setting aside the order which was likely passed under the extended time, but the specific challenge to the notifications themselves was not independently adjudicated upon in detail.

Facts

The petitioner, Kamal Nayan Chowdhary, Proprietor of M/s. Saket Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original dated 30.12.2023, issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Basheerbagh-1 Circle. The petitioner also challenged a Notification No. 9/2023-C.T. dated 31.03.2023 and a corresponding GO Ms. No. 118 dated 25.08.2023, which extended the time limit for passing orders. The petitioner argued that these orders and notifications were illegal, arbitrary, and violative of constitutional provisions and the GST Act. The respondents included the Assistant Commissioner (ST), the State of Telangana, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), and the Union of India. The core of the dispute revolved around the validity of the show cause notice and the order passed without proper signatures.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Order-in-Original dated 30.12.2023, issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) under the CGST/TGST Act, 2017, is void, arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India, and consequently liable to be set aside? The petitioner contended that the order lacked physical or digital signatures, rendering it invalid. 2. Whether Notification No. 9/2023-C.T. dated 31.03.2023 issued by the CBIC and GO Ms. No. 118 dated 25.08.2023 issued by the State of Telangana, which extended the time limit for passing orders, are without authority of law, ultra vires to Section 73(10) of the GST Act, 2017 and Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, and 265 of the Constitution of India? The petitioner argued that these notifications were beyond the statutory powers conferred by the Act. The respondents' arguments were not explicitly recorded in the provided text, but their participation implies a defense of the impugned orders and notifications.