Cheralathan Dharmaraj vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax

Held

The High Court held that the present batch of writ petitions is squarely covered by a common order dated 30.09.2026 passed by a Full Bench of the same High Court in WP.No.20397 of 2025 and batch. The Full Bench had previously addressed and decided the substantial issue raised in these petitions, which pertained to the validity of orders not being signed by the competent authority. The Full Bench's decision was against the writ petitioners. Consequently, the present writ petitions were disposed of in terms of the liberty granted by the Full Bench in its common order. This liberty included a period of two weeks, commencing from the date of the current order (08.10.2026), for the petitioners to pursue their remedies as per the Full Bench's directions. The court did not decide the merits of each individual petition but relied on the precedent set by the Full Bench.

Facts

This judgment concerns a batch of five writ petitions filed before the Telangana High Court. The petitioners, including Rajanna Kailasa (proprietor of 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 orders and notices issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and other revenue authorities. The core of their grievance is that the impugned orders, specifically those in Form GST DRC-07, were either unsigned, arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, or violative of constitutional provisions and principles of natural justice. Some petitioners also contend that the orders were not properly communicated, impacting their ability to file statutory appeals. The tax periods involved range from 2017-18 to 2019-20.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders passed under the CGST/TGST Act, 2017, are void, arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 265, and 300A of the Constitution of India, as argued by the petitioners. The petitioners contend that the orders are vitiated by a lack of proper signature or authentication by the competent authority, rendering them non est in the eyes of law. They also argue that the orders traverse beyond the show cause notices, were not properly communicated, and violate principles of natural justice. 2. Whether the arrear notices and consequential recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to the impugned orders are void, arbitrary, and illegal, as asserted by the petitioners. The petitioners seek to set aside these recovery actions. 3. In the alternative, whether the impugned orders should be deemed communicated only on a specific later date (e.g., 03.08.2026), thereby allowing the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act, including offline filing, as argued by the petitioners. The respondents, represented by the Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, did not present arguments on these specific issues in the provided text, but the court's decision indicates reliance on a prior Full Bench ruling.