Rajanna Kailasa vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax

Facts

Three writ petitions were filed before the Telangana High Court challenging orders passed by Assistant Commissioners of State Tax. In WP No. 33748 of 2026, the petitioner challenged an order and attachment under the GST Act. In WP No. 33811 of 2026, the petitioner challenged a show cause notice and an order under Section 73 of the CGST Act for the financial year 2018-19. In WP No. 33841 of 2026, the petitioner challenged a summary of show cause notice and an order under Section 73 of the CGST Act for the tax period April 2021 to March 2022 (FY 2021-22), raising a demand of Rs. 7,52,581.82. The common contention across these petitions was that the impugned orders were vitiated due to not being signed by the competent authority.

Held

The High Court held that the substantial issue raised in these writ petitions was identical to an issue previously referred to a Full Bench of the same High Court in WP.No.20397 of 2025 and batch, decided on 30.09.2026. The Full Bench had answered the said question against the writ petitioners and disposed of the batch of petitions accordingly. Therefore, the present batch of writ petitions was also squarely covered by the Full Bench's decision. The Court disposed of these petitions in terms of the liberty granted by the Full Bench, allowing the petitioners two weeks from the date of the order to avail their remedies, with the period commencing from 07.10.2026. No order as to costs was made.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders passed under the CGST/TGST Act, 2017, are void, arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction, particularly concerning the alleged lack of signature by the competent authority, thereby violating Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 265, and 300A of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that the impugned orders were vitiated on the ground that they were not signed by the competent authority. They argued that this rendered the orders non est in the eyes of law, void, illegal, and arbitrary, violating principles of natural justice and constitutional provisions. In WP No. 33841 of 2026, it was also argued that the show cause notice was unsigned in violation of Rule 26(3) of the CGST/TGST Rules, 2017, and issued without necessary preceding forms and valid service. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue's side, other than their representation by the learned Assistant Government Pleader.