M/S. Maruti Oil Mills vs. Assistant Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Maruti Oil Mills, represented by its Managing Partner, filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court challenging an Order-in-Original dated August 29, 2024, and proceedings in Form DRC-07 dated August 29, 2024, issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Warangal Urban-II. The challenge pertains to the tax period 2019-20. The petitioner argued that the order and proceedings were legally unenforceable, barred by limitation, contrary to Rule 142(1A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, for not issuing Form GST DRC-01A, and also contrary to governmental circulars for lacking a verifiable DIN. The petitioner sought to set aside the impugned order and proceedings.
Held
The Court held that since the impugned notice and order were unsigned, they were liable to be set aside. This decision was based on the common order previously passed by the High Court in W.P.No.21101 of 2024 & batch, dated February 28, 2025. The Court set aside the impugned notice and order. Liberty was granted to the respondents to issue a fresh show cause notice or order in accordance with the law. The Court clarified that the limitation period would not be a hurdle for the respondents in undertaking this exercise afresh. Furthermore, the assessee was reserved the liberty to raise objections regarding the original notice being issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation if a fresh show cause notice was issued. The Court directed that if such an objection was raised, the proper officer must decide it in accordance with the law by assigning reasons. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Order-in-Original and proceedings in Form DRC-07, issued for the tax period 2019-20, are legally unenforceable and barred by limitation, contrary to Rule 142(1A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, and governmental circulars for not containing a verifiable DIN? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice and order were unsigned. They relied on a common order passed by the High Court in W.P.No.21101 of 2024 & batch, dated February 28, 2025, which set aside unsigned notices and orders. The petitioner contended that the lack of signature renders the order invalid and unenforceable. Respondents' Contention: The respondents, represented by the Special Government Pleader for State Tax, did not explicitly record arguments on the merits of the case. However, they agreed that if the notice and order were unsigned, they could be set aside based on the precedent cited by the petitioner.
Sections Cited
Rule 142(1A)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER
t ,1 (. THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTTCE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION No.43OO of 2o25 ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujog Paul) Sri Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax appearing for respondent Nos. I and 2
Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax submitted that since the impugned notice and order are unsigned, the same may be set aside in view of the common order passed in W.P.No.21101 of 2024 &, batch, dated 28.O2.2O25
Accordingly, the impugned notice and order are set aside" Liberty is reserved to the respondents to issue fresh show cause notice/order in accordalce with law and, for undertaking this exerclse afresh, the limitation will not be a hurdle for the respondents. Libertv is also reserved to the assessee that in the event he is put to show cause notice, he may raise objection that the original notice itself was issued beyond the prescribed I {
2 period of lirrLitation. If such an objection is raised by the assessee, it shall be the duty of the proper officer to d,:cide it in accordance u ith rtu by assigning reasons.
The Writ P,:tition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. No costs. Interlor:utory applications, if any pending, sht,dl also stand closed. I I I i .L.LAKSHMI BABU \, DEPUTY REGTSTRAR //// \' SECTION OFFICER To '1 . Assistan. Corrmissioner (ST), Warangal Urban-ll' Warangal i. i;ri"JiJri S*-eiary to Cwei'ii""nt, n""venue (CT-ll) Departrnent, Secretariat, Hvdeiabad, S;tate of Telanoana. 3. rt;H;;ilri S;ir-ei;tv, Uiron of lndia' Govemmenl of lndia' tt{nlp1ry gl ^^. " ii""".", s?d trloor, L"errn oJep suitoinq s.alsj{ Maro New Delhi-1 10 001 4. one cc to slll KARrHlfi'ili/"ANi-di;llinrt'tn{ooY' Advocate [oPUC] 5' il; d6 i; siii sWACoop ooRlLLA, special Govt Pleader for State Tax Adv,tcatt: tOPUCI o. oft'cti" ShiEnbr'pnnvEEN KUMAR, Dv. sollclroR GENERAL oF rNDIA [C)PUC]
PSK. LS Two CD Cop es
HIGH COI..!RT DATED:2410412025 ORDER WP.No.4300 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUI-COSTS ,a 2 /-= :==:_::::'\ SI.A , E 1 ) (r (o QA q 1t. i4 A! 2025 .at , a: :'))'-- :.,, DF Sl LN>x t
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.