M/S. Baby Husna vs. Assistant Commissioner (St)

Facts

M/s. Baby Husna (Petitioner) filed a review application seeking to recall an order dated 02.01.2025 passed by the Telangana High Court in Writ Petition No. 29531 of 2024, which was part of a batch of writ petitions. The original writ petition challenged certain notifications extending limitation periods and also contended that the show-cause notices and assessment orders were unsigned. The Division Bench, in its previous order, had upheld the notifications and relegated the petitioners to appeal. However, in the present review application, the parties reached a consensus. The Petitioner was represented by Sri V. Veeresham, and the Respondents included the Assistant Commissioner (ST), State of Telangana, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, and Union of India.

Held

The Court held that in view of the consensus arrived at between the parties, the order under review should be modified. Specifically, the Court found that the show-cause notice and the impugned orders, which were unsigned, were to be set aside. The reasoning was based on the agreement of the parties and the fact that the issue of unsigned notices and orders had been settled in a related batch of writ petitions (WP.No.21101 of 2024 and batch). The Court did not revisit the issue of limitation notifications. The operative direction was to set aside the unsigned notices and orders, with liberty reserved to the respondents to issue fresh show-cause notices in accordance with law. Other conditions from the order in WP.No.21101 of 2024 and batch were to apply mutatis mutandis. The Court expressly modified its previous order in this writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 02.01.2025 passed in Writ Petition No. 29531 of 2024 and batch should be reviewed and recalled. (Question of law and fact) 2. Whether the show-cause notices and impugned assessment orders, being unsigned, are invalid. (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The Petitioner sought review of the previous order, primarily focusing on the issue of unsigned show-cause notices and assessment orders. They argued that these documents being unsigned rendered them invalid, and therefore, they should not be relegated to the appellate remedy. They relied on the consensus reached with the respondents. Revenue/State's arguments: The Revenue/State, represented by Sri Swaroop Oorilla, Special GP for State Tax, and other counsel for the central government respondents, agreed to a consensus. They acknowledged that the issue of unsigned notices and orders had been definitively addressed in a separate batch of writ petitions (WP.No.21101 of 2024 and batch).