Kundhana Enterprises vs. The Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes)

Held

The Court did not delve into the merits of the contentions raised by either party. Upon hearing the arguments, the Petitioner sought liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned order, acknowledging potential delay in approaching the appellate authority. The Revenue agreed that the Petitioner could prefer an appeal and take all available grounds. Consequently, the Court granted liberty to the Petitioner to prefer an appeal within two weeks, along with a delay condonation application and the statutory pre-deposit. 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 merits. 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 passed by the 1st Respondent, the Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes). The challenge was for the tax period April 2022 to March 2023. The Petitioner contended that the notice and order were illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and vague, lacking proper satisfaction of Section 74 ingredients and signatures. The Petitioner also sought a stay on further proceedings. The Respondents are the Assistant Commissioners (State Taxes) and the State of Telangana.

Key Issues

1. Whether the show cause notice and impugned order dated 03.09.2025, issued by the 1st Respondent for the tax period April 2022 to March 2023, are illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, legally unenforceable, vaguely issued without proper satisfaction of the ingredients of Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act, and without signatures. Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that the impugned notice and order were fundamentally flawed, lacking jurisdiction and proper satisfaction of statutory requirements, specifically referencing Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act. They also claimed the documents lacked signatures, rendering them invalid. The Petitioner sought to set aside these documents and prevent further proceedings. Revenue's Arguments: The Revenue, represented by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, did not contest the Petitioner's right to prefer an appeal. They submitted that the Petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned order, taking all available grounds before the appellate authority.