M/S. S S Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. S S Constructions, filed a Review Application before the Telangana High Court challenging an order dated 28.08.2024 and an arrear recovery notice dated 10.12.2024, both issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Malkajgiri - 2. These orders pertained to the tax period 2019-20 under the CGST/SGST Acts, 2017. The petitioner sought a stay on further proceedings, including tax collection. The review application was filed after a common order was passed in WP.No. 1154 of 2024 and batch on 02.01.2025, which had dealt with challenges to notifications extending limitation periods and relegated petitioners to appeal. A separate ground in the writ petition concerned the show-cause notice and assessment orders being unsigned documents.
Held
The Court noted that the parties had reached a consensus. It was agreed that the order under review was the common order passed in WP.No. 1154 of 2024 and batch dated 02.01.2025. In those matters, the principal challenge was to notifications extending limitation periods, which were upheld, and petitioners were relegated to appeal. However, another ground in the writ petition was that the show-cause notice and impugned assessment orders were unsigned documents. The parties agreed that this issue had been finally drawn on by the Court on 28.02.2025 in WP.No. 21101 of 2024 and batch. Therefore, there was no point in relegating the petitioner to the remedy of appeal. Consequently, the order under review was modified to the extent agreed upon by the parties. The show-cause notice and the impugned orders, being unsigned, were set aside. The respondents were granted liberty to issue fresh show-cause notices in accordance with law and proceed further. Other conditions mentioned in the order passed in WP.No. 21101 of 2024 and batch dated 28.11.2024 were to apply mutatis mutandis.
Key Issues
1. Whether the common order dated 02.01.2025 passed in WP.No. 1154 of 2024 and batch, which upheld notifications extending limitation periods and relegated petitioners to appeal, should be applied to the present case. 2. Whether the show-cause notice and impugned assessment orders, which were alleged to be unsigned documents, are valid. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the common order in WP.No. 1154 of 2024 and batch should be considered. They also argued that the show-cause notice and assessment orders were unsigned documents. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records that during the course of hearing, the parties reached a consensus. It does not explicitly detail the revenue's arguments on the specific issues, but implies their agreement to the resolution based on a prior decision.
Sections Cited
Section 151 CPC
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER Sri Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel for the pelitioner. Sri T.Chaitanl,a Kiran, lgarned coungel representing; Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Specia{ Gilreinmenf Pleader for State Tax and Sri B.Mukherjee, tearned counsel r)oresenting 9ri Gadi Pravgen Kunrar, learned Deputy Solicitor General '>f lrldia. Quring the Doursq pf hearing, learngd counsel l9r t[e partiqs reached to a cgnsensui, lt is agreed that !h.e order rinder revigw is the c ommgn order passe{ in WP.No 1154 of 2O24 and, batch, dated 02-01-2025. ln trqse matte-rPr the principal chalk:ngti wa$ to the notifications, whereby, lmitation was extended. Sinr;e tfroie notifications were upheld, this Court relegated thg petitiongrs to avail the remedy of hppeal. Anothef groutrd in the Writ Petition Was that the sh9$r-cauqe- notice a.nd the imnugned assessment orders are qnsigned documents. The partieg 4gleed that the r:u Gainq arg fiqally drairvn on this issr.re by this Gourt on 28.02.2925 in WP.No.21101 ot 20?4 ind batph and thiq review petilion may lrq dispoqgd of in term,; r:f said qrde( lnd nor11 there is !9 point in relegatinq tbq pgtitioner to avail tha rerriedy gf appeSl. ;6 vieW c,f th€ consensug arrived at, the order rlnder t eyiew standq pgy'ified to the e.ikrrrt agreed by the parties and it is ordered that the show' eause notice ind thr> irnpugn6d or{ers wlrich are unsignerl are set aside. Libe(y 1s;61s6rtvgd to the respondents to igsue fresh show cause notice, in accordanie with law and proeeed furlher. Qther condltions mentioned ln thg or{er passed in WP,No.?i1dl ol 2014 ana batch, dated 28.111 202!' sh4ll apFly rtrutatig mutarrdi$ to this case. The ordei passed in this Writ Petition gtands podified. H ,1,# .t" * it',h rf f G
Accordingly, this Review Application is disposed of. Registry is directed to keep a copy of this order in the original Writ Petition. V. HARIPRASAD EPUTY REGISTRAR //// s CTION OFFICER The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Malkajgiri - 2, It/a lka Iiri, Hyderabad The Principal Secretary, Revenue (CT) Department, Telangana Secreta at, n T Hyd he erabad, State of Telan retary, Union of lndia, De gana partment of Revenue, Minist.ry qf Fi4anoe, New Sec De!hi To 1 2 4 : 6 7. s o ,0 PSK. BS The Chairman, Centlal Boar{ 9f lndirect Taxes and eusloms, Ministry of Financp,.Department of Reverige North Block. Cential gecretariat. Mew Delhi ]119 $,eplion Qfficer, !Vri1 Non.Services Section, High Caurt for the Stale of Telan$ana, at Hyderaba.d. 9nu QQ to QBI 9tl4l6 lEErnUt BASHA, Advocare IopUCl 9^1q 9f to SRI SWAROQP OOR|LLA, SBeciat Govt'preiddr for State Tax toPucl ..' .r Q11e QQto SRI GADI PRAVEEAI KUMAR, Dy, SoLrOtToR GENERAL oE
Q9lo SRI D9MINlC FEBNANDES, $c E',9R e Brc tQpugl Two QD Qopies YrI- IY ilrl .at 'l H * "t. H r+ r+,fi !i ft; ri. fi *
.4. it ,+ HIGH COUR,1" DATED:02/05/;1025 ORDER REV.!A.No.3 CfF 2025 IN WP.No.36103 of 2024 DISPOSING CIF THE REV.IA WITHOUT COSTS 4fr (E sri t6. 3 0 ,lult 2925 (r^. ,i Hir tt1 {' $t I ),t \ /. ) ) (I r,), _ PA- 't r,,# 94 t H itl,# sl ").)
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.