M/S. Kundhana Enterprises vs. The Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes)

Held

The Court did not delve into the merits of the contentions raised by either party. Instead, the Court granted liberty to the Petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned order within a period of two weeks. This liberty was granted with the condition of making the statutory pre-deposit and filing a delay condonation application. The Petitioner was advised to raise all available grounds of law and fact in the appeal memo. The Court directed that the appellate authority would consider the question of delay sympathetically, taking into account the facts and circumstances, and if satisfied, proceed to decide the appeal on its merits in accordance with the law. The writ petition was disposed of on this basis.

Facts

M/s. Kundhana Enterprises (the Petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court challenging a show cause notice dated 18.10.2024 and an impugned order dated 03.09.2025, both issued by the Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes), for the tax period April 2023 to March 2024. The Petitioner contended that these notices and the order were illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, vague, lacked proper satisfaction of Section 74 ingredients, and were unsigned. The Petitioner also argued they were contrary to previous High Court decisions and the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 and the Telangana GST Act, 2017. The Petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus to set aside these actions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the show cause notice dated 18.10.2024 and the impugned order dated 03.09.2025, issued by the Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes) for the tax period April 2023 to March 2024, are illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, legally unenforceable, vague, lacking proper satisfaction of Section 74 ingredients, unsigned, and contrary to the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that the show cause notice and the impugned order were fundamentally flawed, citing illegality, arbitrariness, lack of jurisdiction, vagueness, failure to satisfy the ingredients of Section 74, absence of signatures, and contravention of statutory provisions and prior High Court judgments. The Petitioner sought to have these actions set aside. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents, represented by the Assistant Government Pleader, did not present detailed arguments on the merits of the Petitioner's claims. Instead, they submitted that the Petitioner was at liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned order.