Dinesh Naik Rathod vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Dinesh Naik Rathod, proprietor of M/s Balaji Fertilizers, challenged an order dated 30.12.2023, including a summary in Form GST DRC-07 and proceedings, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Adilabad. This order levied SGST/CGST/IGST and penalty for the tax period 2017-18 under Section 73(10) of the TGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the order and the preceding show cause notice lacked physical or electronic signatures. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that no proper opportunity of being heard was provided, and Form GST DRC-01A, as contemplated under Rule 142(1A) of the Rules, 2017, was not issued. The petitioner sought to declare these actions arbitrary and in violation of statutory provisions and principles of natural justice.
Held
The Court did not delve into the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Venkatram Reddy Mantur, sought permission to withdraw the writ petition. The petitioner requested liberty to file a properly constituted petition. The Court allowed this prayer. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. Any pending miscellaneous petitions were also ordered to stand closed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 30.12.2023, summary in Form GST DRC-07, and proceedings dated 30.12.2023, levying SGST/CGST/IGST and penalty for the tax period 2017-18, are arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the TGST Act, 2017, and in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice and Rule of Law, as argued by the petitioner. This issue turns on Section 73(10) of the TGST Act, 2017, and Rule 142(1A) of the Rules, 2017. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the adjudication order and the show cause notice lacked physical or electronic signatures. Additionally, the petitioner contended that a proper opportunity of being heard was not provided, and Form GST DRC-01A was not issued as required by Rule 142(1A). These procedural lapses, according to the petitioner, rendered the impugned order arbitrary and violative of constitutional provisions (Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265) and principles of natural justice. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents.
Sections Cited
Section 73(10), Rule 142(1A)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER
: To THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION No.11813 of 2o25 ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul) Sri Venkatram Reddy Mantur, learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks to withdraw this writ petition with the liberty to the petitioner to file a properly constituted petition.
Prayer is allowed
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty prayed for. No order as to costs. Miscellareous petitions pending, if any, sha1l stand closed. SO/.A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //// SECTION OFFICER
One CC to SRI VENKATRAM REDDY MANTUR, Advocate IOPUCI
One CC to SRI A.KRANTI KUIMAR REDDY, Special Govt Pleader for State Tax [OPUC]
Two CD Copies PSK. LS
HIGH COURT DATED:2210412025 s tt t= h. i\ l? ,1 ORDER WP.No.11813 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS r' il\q\e{
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.