Krishna Kumar Soni vs. The Assistant Commissioner St

Facts

The petitioner, Krishna Kumar Soni (M/s. Vedaanta Ventures), filed a review petition seeking to recall an order dated 02.01.2025 passed by the Division Bench-II in Writ Petition No. 35249 of 2024. The original writ petition challenged, inter alia, the validity of notifications extending limitation periods and the fact that show-cause notices and assessment orders were unsigned. The review petition was filed under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC. The parties, the petitioner and the respondents (Assistant Commissioner ST and State of Telangana), reached a consensus during the hearing. The consensus was to modify the order under review based on a subsequent order passed by the High Court in WP.No.21101 of 2024 and batch.

Held

The Court held that in view of the consensus arrived at between the parties, the order under review stands modified. The Court found that the issue of unsigned show-cause notices and impugned assessment orders had been finally decided in WP.No.21101 of 2024 and batch. Consequently, the Court ordered that the show-cause notice and the impugned orders, which were unsigned, are set aside. The respondents are granted liberty to issue fresh show-cause notices in accordance with law and proceed further. The Court also stated that other conditions mentioned in the order passed in WP.No.21101 of 2024 and batch shall apply mutatis mutandis to this case. The ratio decidendi is that where parties reach a consensus on a matter that has been previously adjudicated by the same court in a similar batch of cases, the court will modify its previous order to reflect that consensus, particularly when it resolves a procedural defect like unsigned notices and orders, thereby avoiding further litigation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 02.01.2025 in Writ Petition No. 35249 of 2024, which upheld notifications extending limitation periods and relegated petitioners to appeal, should be reviewed and recalled. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought review of the order. The parties reached a consensus that the order under review, which was a common order in WP.No.1154 of 2024 and batch, should be modified. Specifically, the petitioner argued that the show-cause notice and impugned assessment orders being unsigned documents was a significant issue. Revenue/State's contention: The Revenue/State agreed to the consensus reached by the parties. They acknowledged that the issue of unsigned show-cause notices and assessment orders had been finally decided by the Court in WP.No.21101 of 2024 and batch. They agreed that there was no point in relegating the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal.