M/S. Deepaditya Developers Limited vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Deepaditya Developers Limited, filed a review application seeking to recall a judgment and order dated January 2, 2025, passed in Writ Petition No. 34625 of 2024. The original writ petition challenged notifications that extended limitation periods and also contended that the show-cause notice and impugned assessment orders were unsigned documents. The State of Telangana and other respondents are the revenue authorities. The review application was filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. During the hearing, the parties reached a consensus regarding the modification of the order under review.

Held

The Court held that the parties had reached a consensus to modify the order under review. The Court agreed that the issue concerning unsigned show-cause notices and impugned assessment orders had been finally decided in WP.No. 21101 of 2024 and batch. Consequently, there was no need to relegate the petitioner to the remedy of appeal on this ground. The Court modified the order under review to the extent agreed upon by the parties, setting aside the unsigned show-cause notice and impugned orders. Liberty was granted to the respondents to issue fresh show-cause notices in accordance with the law and proceed further. The Court also stated that the directions mentioned in the order passed in WP.No. 21101 of 2024 and batch would apply mutatis mutandis to this case. The ratio decidendi is that unsigned statutory notices and orders are invalid and should be set aside, with liberty to issue fresh notices if permissible by law, especially when a consensus is reached between the parties.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated January 2, 2025, passed in Writ Petition No. 34625 of 2024, which upheld notifications extending limitation periods and relegated the petitioner to appeal, requires review. 2. Whether the show-cause notice and impugned assessment orders, being unsigned documents, are liable to be set aside. The petitioner argued that the original writ petition had two main grounds: the challenge to the limitation extension notifications and the invalidity of unsigned notices and orders. The revenue authorities did not record specific arguments in the judgment for this review application, but the consensus reached indicates their agreement on the outcome concerning the unsigned documents. The judgment refers to a prior decision in WP.No. 21101 of 2024 and batch, which dealt with similar issues.