Thokala Bhaskar Goud vs. The State Of Telangana

Held

The High Court held that the substantial issue raised in the batch of 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, dated 30.09.2026. The Full Bench, in its common order dated 30.09.2026, had decided the matter against the writ petitioners and disposed of those petitions. Consequently, the present batch of writ petitions was also squarely covered by the Full Bench's decision. The Court therefore disposed of these petitions in terms of the liberty granted by the Full Bench, which included a period of two weeks from the date of the order for the petitioners to take further action. No costs were awarded.

Facts

The petitioners, including M/s. Sri Venkateswara Agencies AB, Thokala Bhaskar Goud, and M/s. Greenwell Seating Solutions, filed multiple writ petitions before the Telangana High Court. The core issue in these petitions pertained to the validity of orders passed under Section 73 of the CGST/TSGST Act, 2017, for the tax period 2018-19. The petitioners contended that these orders, including summary show cause notices (Form GST DRC-01) and adjudication orders (Form GST DRC-07), were vitiated because they lacked physical or digital signatures of the competent authority. Some petitions also challenged the seizure of bank accounts and the extension of limitation periods through notifications. The petitions were filed against various Assistant Commissioners of State Tax and the State of Telangana.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders passed under Section 73 of the CGST/TSGST Act, 2017, are illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law due to the absence of physical or digital signatures of the issuing officer? (Petitioner's contention: Yes, such orders are non-est in law and cannot be enforced, violating principles of natural justice and statutory provisions. Revenue's contention: Not explicitly recorded, but implicitly, they would argue for the validity of the orders or that the issue is covered by precedent.) 2. Whether Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax and G.O.Ms.No.170 extending the limitation for concluding adjudication under Section 73 for the financial year 2018-19 are ultra-vires Section 168-A of the CGST Act and Section 168-A of the TSGST Act, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution? (Petitioner's contention: Yes, these notifications are arbitrary and beyond the scope of the enabling provisions. Revenue's contention: Not explicitly recorded.) 3. Whether the limitation period for filing a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act commences only upon service of a signed copy of the adjudication order? (Petitioner's contention: Yes, an unsigned order cannot trigger the limitation period. Revenue's contention: Not explicitly recorded.)