M/S. Sumadhura Vasavi Infrastructure LLP. vs. The Union Of INDIA
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Sumadhura Vasavi Infrastructure LLP, filed an application seeking review of an order dated 02.01.2025 in Writ Petition No. 33448 of 2024. The grounds for review were that the impugned order lacked a Document Identification Number (DIN) and that the final order was passed on grounds not included in the show-cause notice. The respondents included the Union of India, the State of Telangana, the Deputy Commissioner (ST), the Goods and Services Tax Council, and the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. The petitioner was represented by Sri G. Narendra Chetty, and the respondents were represented by various counsel.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner's grievances regarding the absence of a DIN and the passing of the final order on grounds not included in the show-cause notice are matters that can be effectively raised before the Appellate Authority. The Court found no reason to exercise its review jurisdiction, opining that the Appellate Authority is best suited to examine these points. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within fifteen days from the date of the order. The Appellate Authority was instructed to decide the appeal on its merits and not dismiss it on the ground of delay, provided the appeal is filed within the stipulated period. The application for review was disposed of accordingly.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should exercise its review jurisdiction to consider the absence of a DIN in the impugned order and the passing of the final order on grounds not raised in the show-cause notice. The petitioner argued that the absence of a DIN renders the order invalid and that passing an order on grounds not subject to a show-cause notice violates principles of natural justice. The petitioner sought a review of the previous order. The respondents, through their respective counsel, contended that these issues could be effectively raised before the Appellate Authority. They argued that the appellate forum is better equipped to examine such procedural and substantive grounds.
Sections Cited
Section 114, Order 47 Rules 1 & 2
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
[ 3430 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF I/ARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI l.A. No.2 of 2025 tn WRIT PETITION NO: 33448 OF 2024 Between: M/s. Sumadhura Vasavi lnfragtructure LLP., Sy. No 145 P and- 9ll2' Nanakramguda, Hyderabad, Rairga Reddy District, Telangana 500008, Rep by its Authorized Signatory K. Venkata Rama Rao. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of lndia, Through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 110001
The State of Telangqna, Rep. by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Revenue (CD Depertment, Teldngana Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana.
The Deoutv Commissioner (ST), STU-3, Punjagutta Division, o/o Joint Commiisioner (State Tax), Punjagutta Division. 5-9-279, 6th Floor, Mayur Kushal Comilex, beside Chermas, Abids, Hyderabad 500001, Telangana
The Goods and Service Tax Council, Rep by its Sercretary, GSTCouncil, Secretariat,Sth Floor, Tower-ll, Jeevan Bharti Building. Janpath Road' Connaught Place, New Delhi-11Q 001. 5. The Central Board of lndirect Taxes and Customs, Rep. b
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.