V. Prameela vs. The State Of Telangana And 3 Others

Held

The Court did not decide the substantive issues of the writ petition on merits. Instead, it granted the learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax one week's time to file a counter affidavit traversing the averments made in the writ petition. The petitioner was granted one week thereafter to file a reply affidavit, if necessary. The matter was listed for further hearing on 01.04.2026. In the interim, the Court directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of the garnishee notice issued in Form GST DRC-13 until the next date of hearing. The Court did not express any finding on the validity of the show cause notice or the order, nor did it decide the constitutional challenge. The issue regarding the provision of Form GST DRC-13 was addressed by the interim order preventing coercive steps.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Smart Sanitary Stores, represented by its Proprietor, Ashok Katta, filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court. The petition challenges a show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 30.05.2022 and an undated attachment to it, both issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Vidyanagar, Secunderabad (1st Respondent). These were issued under the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the tax period 2019-20. The petitioner also challenges the summary of order in Form GST DRC-07 and its attachment, both dated 08.07.2024, passed by the 1st Respondent for the same tax period. The petitioner contends these actions are without authority of law, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India. An interim application seeks a direction to the 1st Respondent to provide a copy of Form GST DRC-13, which froze the petitioner's bank account, pending disposal of the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 and the subsequent order in Form GST DRC-07, issued by the 1st Respondent for the tax period 2019-20, are without the authority of law and arbitrary, thereby violating Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India? The petitioner argued that the impugned notices and orders are arbitrary and violative of constitutional provisions. The petitioner's counsel, Sri Srinarayan Toshniwal, presented these arguments. The respondents, represented by Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, were granted time to file a counter affidavit. No specific arguments from the revenue regarding the validity of the notices or the constitutional challenge were recorded in the provided text.