M/S. Sree Krishna Automotives Hyderabad PVT LTD vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax

Held

The Court held that the impugned show cause notice dated January 31, 2024, and the order dated April 27, 2024, were liable to be set aside due to the absence of physical or digital signatures. The Court noted that it had previously set aside similar orders on the same ground in another writ petition (W.P.No.8014 of 2024). The parties agreed that the present matter could be disposed of in terms of the order passed in W.P.No.8014 of 2024. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned show cause notice and order, reserving liberty to the Department to proceed against the petitioner from the appropriate stage in accordance with law. The petitioner was also granted liberty to take all possible defenses in accordance with law. The Court did not explicitly rule on the validity of the notifications and Government Orders concerning time extensions, as the matter was disposed of based on the procedural defect of unsigned notices and orders.

Facts

M/s. Sree Krishna Automotives Hyderabad Pvt Ltd (the Petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court challenging an order dated April 27, 2024, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (the 1st Respondent) under the CGST/GST Act, 2017. The Petitioner also challenged notifications issued by the Union of India and corresponding Government Orders of the State of Telangana, which extended time limits for passing orders. The Petitioner argued that these notifications and G.Os were ultra vires the GST Act and violated constitutional provisions. A significant procedural fact is that both the impugned show cause notice dated January 31, 2024, and the order dated April 27, 2024, lacked physical or digital signatures.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned show cause notice dated January 31, 2024, and the order dated April 27, 2024, passed by the 1st Respondent are void, arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, and violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India, due to the absence of physical or digital signatures. 2. Whether Notification No. 09/2023-CT dated March 31, 2023, and Notification No. 56/2023-CT dated December 28, 2023, issued by Respondent No. 4 through Respondent No. 5, and corresponding GO Ms. No. 118 dated August 25, 2023, and GO Ms. No. 170 dated December 30, 2023, issued by Respondent No. 3, which extended the time limit for passing orders, are without authority of law, ultra vires Section 73(10) and Section 168A of the GST Act, 2017, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, and 265 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner contended that the absence of physical or digital signatures on the show cause notice and the order rendered them void and illegal. They also argued that the notifications and Government Orders extending time limits were beyond the statutory authority and violated specific sections of the GST Act and constitutional provisions. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents did not record any specific arguments against the Petitioner's contentions regarding the lack of signatures. However, they were represented by counsel, indicating their participation in the proceedings.