M/S Padhmavathi Traders Wholesale General Merchant vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax

Held

The Court held that the impugned show cause notice dated 12.06.2022 and the order dated 30.04.2024 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 this ground in W.P.No.8014 of 2024. The reasoning was that such an omission violates fundamental procedural requirements and principles of natural justice. The Court accepted the parties' fair submission that the matter could be disposed of in terms of the order passed in W.P.No.8014 of 2024. Consequently, the impugned show cause notice and order were set aside. The Court reserved liberty to the Department to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law from the appropriate stage and also granted liberty to the petitioner to take all possible defenses in accordance with law. The issue regarding the validity of the notifications extending time limits was not explicitly decided as the matter was disposed of based on the signature issue.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Padhmavathi Traders wholesale General Merchant, filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court challenging an order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax. The petitioner also challenged notifications extending time limits for passing orders. The primary contention was that the impugned show cause notice dated 12.06.2022 and the order dated 30.04.2024 lacked physical or digital signatures. The respondents included the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, the Union of India, the State of Telangana, and the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC). The petitioner sought to declare the order void, arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction, and to set it aside. The petition also sought to declare certain notifications and government orders extending time limits as ultra vires.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 30.04.2024 and the show cause notice dated 12.06.2022 are liable to be set aside for lacking physical or digital signatures, thereby violating principles of natural justice and constitutional provisions (Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265)? 2. Whether the notifications extending the time limit for passing orders, specifically Notification No. 09/2023-C.T dated 31.03.2023, Notification No. 56/2023-CT dated 28.12.2023, GO Ms. No. 118 dated 25.08.2023, and GO Ms. No. 170 dated 30.12.2023, are without authority of law and ultra vires to Section 73(10) and Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, and 265 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the absence of physical or digital signatures on the show cause notice and the order rendered them void and illegal, violating principles of natural justice. They also contended that the notifications and government orders extending time limits were beyond the statutory authority and ultra vires the GST Act and the Constitution. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records a fair submission from both parties that the impugned show cause notice and order did not contain any physical or digital signature. The respondents did not present any arguments against this specific point.