Ehadeerunnisa Naheed Junaidi vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, Mr. Daya Lal, filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court challenging the inaction of the Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes) in not considering his representations dated March 9, 2021, and March 23, 2026. Concurrently, he challenged the bank attachment orders issued via Form GST DRC-13 on February 17, 2026, to his banks (State Bank of India and ICICI Bank in Rajasthan). The petitioner contends that he is not liable for the tax dues for which recovery is being sought. The petition also seeks to restrain the revenue from taking coercive steps against him for business not carried out by him under GST No. 36FHPL3473NIZY. The court issued notice to the newly added respondent, M/s Vinayaka Granites, and directed the filing of a counter affidavit.

Held

The Court, at the stage of admission, issued notice to the newly added respondent, M/s Vinayaka Granites. It also directed the learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax to file a counter affidavit. The matter was listed for further hearing after four weeks. The Court did not make any definitive findings on the merits of the petitioner's claims regarding the illegality of the inaction or the bank attachment orders. The primary action taken was procedural: issuing notice and directing the filing of a response from the revenue. No specific provisions of the CGST Act or Telangana GST Act were discussed in detail in this order, as it is an interim order before admission.

Key Issues

1. Whether the inaction of the 1st Respondent (Assistant Commissioner) in not considering the petitioner's representations dated 9.3.2021 and 23.3.2026 is illegal, arbitrary, and against the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? 2. Whether the issuance of bank attachment orders (Form GST DRC-13 dated 17.2.2026) for recovery of tax dues, which the petitioner claims he is not liable to pay, is illegal, arbitrary, and against the provisions of the GST Acts? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the inaction of the revenue authorities in not addressing his representations is illegal and arbitrary. He further contended that the bank attachment orders are consequently illegal as they are based on tax dues he is not liable for and pertain to business not conducted by him. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the 1st Respondent to consider his representations and to restrain coercive steps. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or State respondents at this stage, beyond the appearance of their counsel.