M/S. Vittal Reddy Somireddy vs. Assistant Commissioner
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Vittal Reddy Somireddy, represented by its proprietor, Somireddy Vittal Reddy, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 01.05.2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, (ST), Madhapur-II Circle, for the tax period 2018-19. The petitioner contended that the impugned show cause notice and the final order were not physically or digitally signed, and that the final order was issued beyond the statutory limitation period. The disputed tax amount was Rs. 11,12,300/-. The petitioner also sought a stay on the collection of this amount and penalty.
Held
The Court held that the impugned documents, namely the show cause notice and the final order, were indeed unsigned. The Court also found that the final order dated 01.05.2024 was issued beyond the statutory period of limitation. Following its previous decision in W.P.No. 17366 of 2025 dated 01.07.2025, the Court reiterated that even a delay of one day beyond the limitation period renders the order unsustainable. Therefore, the Court set aside the impugned notice and order. The consequential bank attachment, if any, was also revoked. The respondents were granted liberty to issue a fresh show cause notice/order in accordance with law, and the limitation period would not be a hurdle for this fresh exercise. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned show cause notice and the final order are invalid for being unsigned, thereby violating statutory requirements? (Question of law) 2. Whether the final order dated 01.05.2024, issued for the tax period 2018-19, is barred by limitation as per the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that both the show cause notice and the final order were not signed, rendering them invalid. Furthermore, the final order was issued on 01.05.2024, which is beyond the permissible limitation period for issuing such an order. The petitioner relied on previous orders of the High Court in similar matters. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent (Assistant Commissioner) conceded that the impugned documents were unsigned. However, regarding the limitation, the respondent argued that the delay was only for one day, which could be considered within the permissible period, and supported this by contending that the delay could be included in the previous date. No specific authority was produced to support this contention.
Sections Cited
Section 23(2), Section 23(10)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION No. 18568 of 2o25 ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble tlae Acting Chtef Justice Sujog Paul) Sri G.N.G.Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, for respondent Nos.1 and 3
With the consent, hnaliy heard.
Learned counsel for . the petitioner raised twin grounds Firstly, it is submitted that the impugned show cause notice and the final order are documents which are not physically or digitally signed. Secondly, the final order was issued on O1.O5.2O24, whereas it could have been issued only up to 30.O4.2024. 4. Learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, for respondent Nos.1 and 3, fairly submits that the impugned documents are indeed unsigned, but supported the aspect of delay by contending that the delay is only for one day.
This question cropped up in W.P.No.l7366 of 2025, dated Ol.O7 .2025, wherein the revenue took simiiar objection. This Court in the said order recorded as under:-
Z "
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the show cause notice was issued on 31.01.2024, whereas the final order was passed on 01.05.2024. thus, it is passed beyond the period of limitation as per Section Z3(2) and (1O) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2O1Z and therefore, the hnal order may be set aside. Reliance is placed on the order passed by this Court in W.p.No.1Og95 ol 2025, dated 12.06.2025. 4. learned Special Government pleader for State Tax vehemently opposed the same and urged that the delay is only of one day which can be included in the previous date. No authority in this regard is produced. Even if it is the delay of one day beyond the limitation, the impugned order cannot sustain judicial scrutiny.
Resuitantly, the final order dated 01.05.2O24 is set aside and the Writ Petitiorl is allowed. No order as to costs.,,
In this view of the matter, we are inclined to hold that even if the delay is only of one day, it is beyond the period of statutory limitation arrd therefore, we deem it proper to foilow the view taken in W.P.No. 17366 of 2025, dated 01.O2.2025. 7. Accordingly, the impugned notice ald order in this Writ Petition are set aside. The consequential bank attachment, if arry, shall also stand revoked. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to issue fresh show cause notice lorder in accordance with law arrd, for undertaking this exercise afresh, the limitation will not be a hurdle for the respondents.
r- I I J
The Writ Petition is disposed of without expressing aly opinion on the merits of the case. No costs Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stald closed. A.H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR AS TANT REGISTRAR //// ECTION OFFICER To 1 2 4 5 6 7 PSK. TKS Assistant Commissioner, (ST), Madhapur- ll Circle, Madhapur Division, Telangana. The S"ecretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, No.136- A, North Block, New Delhi. The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (CT-ll) Department' Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangalq _. _. . - - . ONE CC tO S{I GADHAMSETTY NAGA GOURI SHANKAR, AdVCCAIE toPUCl bne CC to SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, Special Govt Pleader for State Tax Advocate IOPUCI ONC CC tO SRi GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF rNDrA [OPUC] Two CD Copies G
HIGH COURT DATED:0910712025 ORDER WP.No.18568 of 2025 s ,.4 o.i. ot ('i ;, 2EtUEm i * .,.J D DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ptt \r, i< a
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.