Uppala Saroja vs. The State Of Telangana

WP/2957/2025HC TelanganaGSTCNR HBHC01005814202512 June 2025Bench: N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The Petitioner, Labonel Fine Baking (India) Private Limited, has filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) and its Hyderabad Zonal Unit officials to conclude investigations concerning other GSTINs of the Petitioner. The Petitioner also seeks to ensure adherence to circulars and guidelines issued by the GST authorities and to decide on representations made by the Petitioner. The Petitioner contends that without such directions, they face the risk of multiple or duplicate proceedings by various officers, leading to chaos, harassment, and conflicting decisions. An interim order was granted earlier, directing the respondents not to proceed further and refrain from taking coercive steps, which has been extended.

Held

The Court, in its order dated 19.02.2026, did not decide the substantive issues raised in the writ petition. Instead, it noted that the counsel for the respondents sought time to obtain instructions. Consequently, the Court listed the matter for further hearing on 24.02.2026. The interim order, which was previously granted, directing the respondents not to proceed further with the matter and to refrain from taking any coercive steps against the Petitioner, was extended until the next date of hearing. Therefore, no findings were made on the Petitioner's claims regarding the conclusion of investigations or adherence to circulars and guidelines, nor were the Petitioner's representations decided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (DGGI Hyderabad Zonal Unit) to conclude investigations concerning other GSTINs of the Petitioner, as per Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to adhere to the provisions of Circulars issued by Commissioner-GST and guidelines dated 08.02.2024, and to take a decision on the representations dated 05.09.2025, 12.09.2025, 22.09.2025, and 23.09.2025 filed by the Petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argues that they are being subjected to multiple and duplicate proceedings by different officers concerning the same subject matter, leading to harassment and potential conflicting decisions. They seek a consolidated investigation and timely decision on their representations to avoid irreparable suffering. They rely on the principles of natural justice and the need for efficient administration of tax laws. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment records that the counsel for the respondents (DGGI) sought short time to obtain instructions. No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue in the provided text.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[ 348e ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION NO: 29570 OF 2025 Between: Labonel Fine Baking (lndia) Private Limited, GSTIN: 36AABCLB936E1ZE; 29AABCL8936E1 Z9; 37 AABCLB936E1ZC Rep. by its Director, [/lrs. [\/ehnaz Hussain, Address Plot No.2, SY.No.157, Gandipet Narsingi, Kokapet, Hyderabad Rangareddy, Telangana - 500075. ...Petitioner AND Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax lntellioence. Headouarters Through its Principal Director General 3'0, 4tn and Sth iloor, lrlfrul Building Sector-6, Dwarka, New Delhi - 1 10075. ...Respondent No.1 2. Principal Additional Director General of Central Tax, Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax lntelligence, Hyderabad Zonal Unit H.No.1-63121212, Plot No.211 and 212 Block-B, Kavuri Hills, Guttala Begumpet tMadhapur, Hyderabad - 500033. ...Respondent No.2 3. Additional Director of Central Tax, Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax inteiiigence, Hyoerabao Zonai unit H.No.1-63i2i212, Plol No.21 1 and 212 Block-B, Kavuri Hills, Guttala Begumpet IMadhapur, Hyderabad - 500033. ...Respondent No.3 4. Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad GST Bhavan, Lal Bahadur Stadium Road Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500004. .Respondent No.4 1I 5. Commissioner of Central Tax, Guntur Guntur Hqrs. Office, C.R. Building Kannavarithota, Guntur - 522004. 6. Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru (North) Bellary Road, Bengaluru - 560032. ...Respondent No.5 No.59, HIMT Bhawan, ...Respondent No.6 Petition under ,Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to:- lssue an appropriate order or a writ more particularly in the nature of a writ of mandamus, directing the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to conclude its investigation in respect of other GSTINs of the Petitioner (Ann 5 and 6) and/or lssue an appropriate order or a writ more particularly in the nature of a writ of mandamus, directing the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to adhere to the provisions of Circulars issued by Commissioner-GST (Ann 8) guidelines dated 08.02.2024 issued by Respondent No.1 (Ann 18), and to take decision on representations dated 05.09.2025 (Ann 31), dated 12..09.2025 (Ann 33), 22.09.2025 (Ann 35) and 23.09.2025 (Ann 36) filed by the Petitioner and/or ilt lssue any other writ, order or a writ in favour of the Petitioner, as this Court may deem fit and proper in the present facts and circumstances of the case, so as to ensure the ends of justice, or else the Petitioner shall continue to suffer irreparably being subjected to multiple or duplicate proceedings on the same subject matter by plurality of officers which leads the petitioner to face multiple investigations and proceedings leading to chaos, harassment, contrary and conflicting decisions and/or iv. Grant costs to the Petitioner lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents not to proceed further with the matter and refrain from taking any coercive steps against the Petitioner, pending disposal of WP.No.29570 of 2025, on the file of the High Court. lt i. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and the order of the High Court dated: 26.09.2025 anC 09.1O.2025 made herein and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. KASHISH GUPTA learned counsel representing [/s. SHRADDHA GUPTA Advocate for the Petitioner and SRl. DOIVINIC FERNANDES Advocate for the Respondents, the Court made the following.

ORDER: Mr. Kashish Gupta, learned counsel representing Ms. Shraddha Gupta, learned counsel, appears for the petitioner through video conference. Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of lndirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 seeks short time to obtain instructions. List the matter on 24.02.2026. lnterim order, granted earlier, shall continue till the next date of hearing. SI}1.MOHD DEPUT}'R8G t- ///

One CC to Ms. SHRADDHA GUPTA, Advocate [OPUC]

Two spare copies ZEE SECTIO OFFICER To,

HIGH COURT HCJ & GMMJ DATED: 1910212026 LtsT oN 24.02.2026 ORDER WP.No.29570 of 2025 INTERIM ORDER EXTENDED

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.