Yadeshwar Mallekedi vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

This judgment consolidates six writ petitions filed before the Telangana High Court. The petitioners, various businesses and individuals, challenged actions taken by GST authorities, primarily the seizure of bank accounts and the passing of orders under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017. The core grievance across these petitions was that the impugned orders and notices were not signed by the competent authority, lacked a Document Identification Number (DIN), and were issued without affording the petitioners an opportunity for a personal hearing, thus violating principles of natural justice. The tax periods involved varied, including 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21. The petitioners sought to set aside these orders and consequential proceedings, including bank account attachments.

Held

The High Court held that the substantial issue raised in the present batch of writ petitions was identical to the issue considered and decided by a Full Bench of the same High Court in WP.No.20397 of 2025 and batch, dated 30.09.2026. The Full Bench had decided the matter against the writ petitioners. Consequently, the present batch of writ petitions was also disposed of in terms of the liberty granted by the Full Bench in its common order dated 30.09.2026. This liberty was stated to be available to the petitioners herein, and a period of two weeks, as granted by the Full Bench, would commence from the date of this order. The court did not delve into the merits of each individual petition but relied on the precedent set by the Full Bench.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders and notices issued under the CGST Act, 2017, are vitiated for not being signed by the competent authority and lacking a DIN, thereby violating principles of natural justice and statutory provisions like Section 75(4) and Section 169(2) and (3) of the CGST Act, 2017, and CBIC Circular No. 12214112017-GST dated 05.11.2019? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that the absence of signatures and DIN on the orders and notices rendered them illegal, arbitrary, void, and contrary to the principles of natural justice and specific provisions of the CGST Act and Rules. They relied on the requirement for proper authentication and communication of orders. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's arguments. However, it notes that the substantial issue raised in these petitions was previously referred to a Full Bench of the High Court.