Arun Kumar Bansal vs. The Assistant Commissioner St

Facts

The petitioner, Arun Kumar Bansal, proprietor of M/s. Bansal Fasteners, filed a review application against an order dated January 2, 2025, passed in Writ Petition No. 35247 of 2024. The original writ petition challenged certain notifications that extended limitations. The High Court, in the original order, had upheld these notifications and relegated the petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal. A further ground in the writ petition was that the show-cause notice and assessment orders were unsigned. During the hearing of the review application, the parties reached a consensus. The respondents are the Assistant Commissioner ST, State of Telangana, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, and Union of India.

Held

The High Court, acknowledging a consensus between the parties, modified its previous order dated January 2, 2025. The Court held that the show-cause notice and the impugned assessment orders, which were unsigned, are set aside. The reasoning was based on the agreement reached by the parties, particularly in light of a prior decision in W.P.No.21101 of 2024 and batch, which dealt with similar issues of unsigned notices. The Court found no point in relegating the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal concerning the unsigned documents. Liberty was reserved to the respondents to issue fresh show-cause notices in accordance with the law and proceed further. Other conditions mentioned in the order passed in W.P.No.21101 of 2024 and batch were directed to apply mutatis mutandis to this case. The ratio decidendi is that unsigned statutory notices and orders are invalid and liable to be quashed, with liberty to issue fresh notices.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court's previous order, which upheld notifications extending limitations and relegated petitioners to appeal, was correctly passed in light of the subsequent consensus? 2. Whether the show-cause notice and impugned assessment orders, being unsigned, are liable to be set aside? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner sought a review of the order dated January 2, 2025. The primary contention revolved around the unsigned nature of the show-cause notice and assessment orders. The petitioner also likely sought to revisit the court's decision to relegate them to appeal, given the consensus reached on the unsigned documents. Revenue/State's Arguments: The revenue/state respondents did not present any arguments against the petitioner's claim regarding the unsigned notices and orders. They agreed to a consensus that the unsigned documents should be set aside, and fresh notices could be issued in accordance with the law. They also agreed that the review petition could be disposed of in terms of a previous order in a batch of similar writ petitions (W.P.No.21101 of 2024 and batch).