M/S. Dachapalli Traders vs. The Assistant Commissioner (Fac)
Facts
This matter concerns a review application filed by M/s. Dachapalli Traders against an order dated January 2, 2025, passed in Writ Petition No. 34677 of 2024. The petitioner, represented by its proprietor, challenged the Assistant Commissioner's (FAC) actions. The primary grounds for the writ petition were the validity of certain notifications that extended timelines for GST compliance, which were upheld in a previous order (W.P. No. 1154 of 2024), and the contention that the show-cause notice and assessment orders were unsigned documents. The court had previously directed petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal in similar cases. The review application sought to modify the earlier order.
Held
The Court, in view of the consensus arrived at between the parties, modified the order under review. The modification was to the extent that the show-cause notice and the impugned orders, being unsigned, were to be treated as having not been issued. The respondents were granted liberty to issue fresh notices and orders in accordance with law and proceed further. The Court also noted that the issue of unsigned documents was addressed in a similar manner in Writ Petition No. 21101 of 2024 and batch. Therefore, the order passed in the present Writ Petition stands modified accordingly. The review application was disposed of.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated January 2, 2025, in Writ Petition No. 34677 of 2024, which upheld certain GST notifications and directed petitioners to avail appeal remedies, requires review in light of the unsigned show-cause notice and assessment orders. (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the show-cause notice and impugned assessment orders were unsigned documents, rendering them invalid. They relied on the principle that unsigned documents lack authenticity and legal standing. Revenue's arguments: The respondents did not record any specific arguments against the review application. However, they were parties to the consensus reached, which involved modifying the original order. The judgment notes that the respondents agreed to the modification proposed by the petitioner.
Sections Cited
Section 114, Order 47 Rule 1, Order 47 Rule 2
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
[ 34301 'HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Juri iction) FRIDAY, THE TWENry EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIET JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI REV.|A.No.3 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO: 34677 OF 2024 Between: M/s. Dachapalli Traders, Dr. No 2-70-1tA, Pqpqlqllu -Village, Julurupadu Mandal, Bh'adradri Kothagudem, Telangana- 507196 Represented ty its i;iopiietor, Mr. Dachapalli Ramesh, S/o. Dachapalli Venkateshwarulu, R/o 3- 2-2b712, Vidnya ruagai Colony, Kothagudem, Khammam- 507101 ,,,PETITIONER AND 1. The Assistant Compissioner (FAC), Kothagudem-ll Circle, W-arangal Division, D.No.3-2-44, 2nd Fioor Near Hanuman Temple, Vidyanagar Colony Kothagudem- 507 101
State 6f Telanqana, Through Principal Secretary to Government Revenue Department (Commercial Tax), Hyderabad, Telangana 3. behtrat Boarb of lndirect Taxes and Customs, GST Policy Wing, New Delhi rqp by its Commissioner
Uirioi of lndia, Ministry of Finance, Represented by its Secretary' North Block, New Delhi-1 10001 .,RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 114 read with order 47 Rule 1 & 2 al CPC praying that
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.