M/S. Sri Durga Bhavani Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner (State Tax)

Facts

M/s. Sri Durga Bhavani Enterprises (the petitioner) filed a review application seeking to review an order dated 02.01.2025 passed in Writ Petition No. 34584 of 2024. The original writ petition challenged notifications that extended limitation periods and also contended that the show-cause notice and assessment orders were unsigned. The respondents include the Assistant Commissioner (State Tax), the State of Telangana, the Union of India, and the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. The review application was filed under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. During the hearing, the parties reached a consensus.

Held

The Court held that in view of the consensus reached between the parties, the order under review should be modified. The Court acknowledged that the original writ petition had challenged both the limitation extension notifications and the unsigned show-cause notices and assessment orders. While the former was decided against the petitioner, the latter issue concerning unsigned documents has been definitively settled by this Court in WP No. 21101 of 2024 and batch. Therefore, it was agreed that there was no point in relegating the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal for the issue of unsigned notices. Consequently, the Court ordered that the show-cause notice and the impugned orders, which were unsigned, are 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 were to apply mutatis mutandis to this case. The order passed in the writ petition stands modified.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 02.01.2025 passed in Writ Petition No. 34584 of 2024, which directed petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal after upholding notifications extending limitation, should be reviewed in light of a subsequent development regarding unsigned notices and orders. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the original writ petition had two grounds: one challenging the limitation extension notifications and another challenging the unsigned show-cause notice and assessment orders. While the former was decided against them, the latter issue has now been definitively settled by this Court in a batch of cases (WP No. 21101 of 2024 and batch). Therefore, remitting them to appeal for the unsigned notices issue would be futile. Revenue/State's contention: The respondents agreed with the petitioner that given the Court's subsequent decision in WP No. 21101 of 2024 and batch, which dealt with unsigned notices, the petitioner should not be relegated to the appellate remedy for this specific ground. They consented to the modification of the review order.