M/S. Primus Remedies Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court held that the impugned show cause notice dated January 31, 2024, and the order dated April 28, 2024, are set aside. This decision was based on the admitted fact that these documents lacked physical or digital signatures. The Court referenced a previous order in W.P. No. 8014 of 2024, where a similar issue led to the setting aside of the show cause notice and order. The Court reserved liberty to the Department to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law from the appropriate stage. The petitioner was also granted liberty to take all possible defenses in accordance with law. The issue regarding the validity of the notifications and the GO extending time limits was not explicitly decided as the matter was disposed of based on the lack of signatures in the impugned notice and order, aligning with the previous judgment. The Court did not delve into the merits of the notifications or the GO.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Primus Remedies Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court challenging an order in appeal dated April 28, 2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST). The petitioner also challenged notifications extending time limits for passing orders and a corresponding Government Order. The core of the challenge was that the impugned show cause notice dated January 31, 2024, and the order dated April 28, 2024, lacked physical or digital signatures. The respondents included the Assistant Commissioner (ST), the Union of India, the State of Telangana, and the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC). The matter was heard with the consent of all parties.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned show cause notice dated January 31, 2024, and the order dated April 28, 2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) 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, Notification No. 56/2023-CT dated December 28, 2023, and GO Ms. No. 179 dated August 25, 2023, extending the time limit for passing orders, are without the authority of law, ultra vires to 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 impugned show cause notice and order were void and illegal due to the lack of signatures, violating principles of natural justice and constitutional provisions. They also argued that the notifications and GO extending time limits were without legal authority and ultra vires the GST Act and the Constitution. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records that the learned counsel for the parties fairly submitted that the impugned show cause notice and order did not contain any physical or digital signature. No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue on the validity of the notifications and GO.