M/S. Sai Venkata Print And Pack vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sai Venkata Print and Pack, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated June 13, 2022, and an order dated December 22, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) for the tax period 2017-18. The petitioner alleged that these documents were illegal and arbitrary, violating constitutional provisions. The petitioner sought to declare the show cause notice and the subsequent order as illegal and sought their setting aside. An interlocutory application was also filed seeking a stay on further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order. The respondents included the Assistant Commissioner (ST), the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, and the State of Telangana.

Held

The Court noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file afresh. The other side, representing the respondents, had no objection to this request. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, granting the petitioner the liberty to file a fresh petition. No costs were imposed. The Court also ordered that any pending interlocutory applications would stand closed. The specific grounds of illegality and violation of constitutional provisions raised by the petitioner regarding the unsigned show cause notice and order were not adjudicated upon due to the withdrawal of the petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the show cause notice dated 13.06.2022 and the order dated 22.12.2023, passed by the 1st Respondent for the tax period 2017-18, are illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India, particularly due to the absence of a signature on these documents. The petitioner argued that the impugned show cause notice and order were passed without proper signatures, rendering them illegal and arbitrary. They contended that this violated their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) (right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business) and the constitutional prohibition against taxation without authority of law under Article 265. The petitioner also invoked Article 14 (equality before the law). The respondents did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.