Evertogeti Life Sciences Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court held that the present batch of writ petitions is squarely covered by a common order dated September 30, 2026, passed by a Full Bench of the High Court in WP.No.20397 of 2025 and batch. The Full Bench had previously decided the substantial issue raised in these petitions, which was whether the impugned orders were vitiated for not being signed by the competent authority. The Full Bench's decision was against the writ petitioners. Consequently, the present batch of writ petitions was disposed of in terms of the liberty granted by the Full Bench. This liberty included a period of two weeks for the petitioners to take further action, commencing from the date of the current order. The Court noted that the issue was similar, if not identical, to the one considered by the Full Bench.

Facts

This judgment concerns a batch of five writ petitions filed before the Telangana High Court. The petitioners, including M/s Aruna Seeds and Pesticides, Cheralathan Dharmaraj, M/s Akshara Medical and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd., and Evertogeti Life Sciences Limited, are challenging various Show Cause Notices (SCNs) and Orders in Form GST DRC-07 issued by the Assistant Commissioners of State Tax. The core contention across these petitions is that the impugned orders are vitiated due to being unsigned by the competent authority. The petitioners seek to declare these orders void, illegal, and without jurisdiction, and in some cases, seek permission to file appeals belatedly. The respondents are the Assistant Commissioners of State Tax and the State of Telangana.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders passed under the CGST/TGST Act, 2017, are void, illegal, and without jurisdiction on the ground that they are unsigned by the competent authority, thereby violating Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 265, and 300A of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice? (Question of law) Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners argue that unsigned orders are non-est in the eyes of law, arbitrary, illegal, and passed without jurisdiction or authority. They contend that such orders are violative of constitutional provisions and principles of natural justice. They also seek an alternative remedy to file appeals belatedly if the orders are not set aside. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record any arguments made by the revenue or state respondents. However, the court's decision implies that the revenue's stance was likely in defense of the validity of the orders, or at least that the petitioners' arguments were not found persuasive in light of a prior Full Bench decision.