M/S. Phyto Chem (INDIA) Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner (St)

Held

The High Court held that the impugned order dated 27.04.2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), was liable to be set aside. The Court noted that both parties fairly submitted that the order lacked any physical or digital signature. The Court referred to its previous decision in W.P.No.8014 of 2024, where a similar order and show cause notice were set aside on the ground of lacking signatures. Following this precedent, the Court set aside the impugned order. However, the Court reserved liberty to the Department to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law from an appropriate stage. The petitioner was also granted liberty to take all possible defenses in accordance with law. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with no costs.

Facts

M/s. Phyto Chem (India) Limited, the petitioner, filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court challenging an order dated 27.04.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Panjagutta. The petitioner sought to declare the impugned order as void, arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, and violative of constitutional principles. The State of Telangana and the Union of India were also impleaded as respondents. The petitioner also filed an interlocutory application seeking a stay on the operation of the impugned order. The parties agreed to dispose of the matter based on a previous order of the High Court in a similar case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 27.04.2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), is liable to be set aside for lacking physical or digital signature, thereby violating principles of natural justice and constitutional provisions (Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265)? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the impugned order, like the one in W.P.No.8014 of 2024, suffered from the fatal flaw of not containing any physical or digital signature. This deficiency, according to the petitioner, rendered the order void, arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction, violating fundamental rights and principles of natural justice. Revenue's Argument: The respondents, represented by the Special Government Pleader for State Tax and the Deputy Solicitor General of India, fairly submitted that the impugned order did not contain any physical or digital signature. They agreed that the matter could be disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.8014 of 2024.