M/S Shresta Infra Tech vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shresta Infra Tech, filed a review application seeking to recall a previous judgment dated 02.01.2025. This prior judgment was passed in Writ Petition No. 20429 of 2024 and a batch of related matters. The original writ petition challenged certain notifications that extended limitation periods and also contended that the show-cause notices and assessment orders were unsigned. The previous judgment upheld the notifications extending limitation and relegated petitioners to appeal. However, a subsequent development occurred on 28.02.2025 in Writ Petition No. 21101 of 2024 and batch, which addressed the issue of unsigned notices and orders.

Held

The Court noted that the parties had reached a consensus. The order under review, dated 02.01.2025, which was passed in Writ Petition No. 1154 of 2024 and batch, had primarily upheld notifications extending limitation and directed petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal. However, the Court acknowledged that the issue of unsigned show-cause notices and impugned assessment orders had been finally decided on 28.02.2025 in Writ Petition No. 21101 of 2024 and batch. In view of the consensus, the order under review was modified. The unsigned show-cause notice and impugned orders were set aside. Liberty was granted to the respondents to issue fresh show-cause notices in accordance with law and proceed further. The other conditions mentioned in the order of 28.02.2025 were to apply mutatis mutandis. The Court held that there was no point in relegating the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the previous judgment of this Court dated 02.01.2025, which upheld the notifications extending limitation and relegated the petitioner to the remedy of appeal, needs to be reviewed in light of subsequent developments regarding unsigned notices and orders. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the issue of unsigned show-cause notices and assessment orders has been finally decided by this Court on 28.02.2025 in another batch of writ petitions. Therefore, it is no longer necessary to relegate them to the appellate remedy, and the review petition should be disposed of in terms of the later order. Respondents' contention: The respondents, represented by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) and other State and Central tax authorities, reached a consensus with the petitioner. They agreed that the review petition could be disposed of in terms of the order passed on 28.02.2025, acknowledging the finality of the decision on unsigned documents.