M/S.Maheswari Enterprises vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court did not delve into the merits of the contentions raised by the parties. Instead, upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and considering that the petitioner sought liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned order, the Court disposed of the writ petition. The Court directed that if the petitioner prefers an appeal within two weeks, along with an application for condonation of delay and statutory pre-deposit, the learned appellate authority would consider it in accordance with law. The appellate authority was also directed to take into consideration that the petitioner had been pursuing the writ remedy before the High Court in the meantime. The petitioner was granted liberty to take all grounds, both in law and on facts, before the appellate authority. If the appellate authority is satisfied that the delay has been properly explained, it shall proceed to decide the case on merits. The Court explicitly stated that it did not wish to comment on the merits of the contentions raised by the parties.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Maheswari Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 30.12.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Nalgonda-II, for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019. The petitioner contended that the order was ex-parte, arbitrary, barred by limitation under Section 74(2) of the CGST/SGST Acts, 2017, and that a mandatory prior notice in Form GST DRC-01A was not issued as per Rule 142(1A) of the Rules, 2017. Additionally, the petitioner argued that the show cause notice and the impugned order were issued without generating a Document Identification Number (DIN), contrary to Circular No. 128147/2019-GST and a Supreme Court judgment. The respondents, represented by the Special Government Pleader for State Tax, initially argued that the order was within limitation as the due date for filing annual returns for 2018-19 was extended to 31.12.2020, and the order was passed on 30.12.2025.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 30.12.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) is barred by limitation under Section 74(2) of the CGST/SGST Acts, 2017, considering the last date to issue a show cause notice was 29.02.2024 and the order should have been issued by 30.08.2024. 2. Whether the action of the Assistant Commissioner (ST) in not issuing a prior notice in Form GST DRC-01A, as contemplated under Rule 142(1A) of the Rules, 2017, for the tax period 2018-19, renders the order invalid. 3. Whether the issuance of the show cause notice and the impugned order without generating a Document Identification Number (DIN) for the tax period 2018-19 is contrary to Circular No. 128147/2019-GST and the Supreme Court judgment in WP (Civil) No. 320 of 2022. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the order was ex-parte, arbitrary, and barred by limitation. They contended that the statutory timelines for issuing show cause notices and orders under Section 74 were not met. The absence of a mandatory pre-notice under Rule 142(1A) and the non-generation of a DIN were also cited as grounds for invalidity, relying on a specific circular and a Supreme Court decision. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue initially argued that the order was within limitation, citing an extension for filing annual returns for the financial year 2018-19 up to 31.12.2020, and the impugned order was passed on 30.12.2025. However, after some arguments, the revenue conceded that the petitioner was at liberty to prefer an appeal.