Silver Oak Villas LLP v. Asstt. CST & Ors.

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers 2024 TaxPub(GST) 924 (Tel-HC) IN THE TELANGANA HIGH COURT P. SAM KOSHY & N. TUKARAMJI J. Silver Oak Villas LLP v. Asstt. CST & Ors. Writ Petition No. 6671 of 2024 14 March, 2024 Appellant by: M NAGA DEEPAK Respondent by: Advocate - Special Govt Pleader for State Tax, Dominic Fernandes, Gadi Praveen Kumar Dy. Solicitor Gen. Of India, A Kranti Kumar Reddy ORDER *P. Sam Koshy* Heard Mr. Venkata Prasad P. learned counsel representing Mr. M. Naga Deepak, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Mr. A. Kranti Kumar Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No. 4 and Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for respondent No. 5. Perused the material available on record. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief: to issue a writ, order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus; I. declaring the impugned order vide Ref. No. ZD361223015515R, dated 8-12-2023, passed by the 1st respondent under the provisions of CGST/TGST Act, 2017 as being void and arbitrary. II. declaring that the Notification No.09/202-C.T dated 31-3-2023 issued by respondent No. 4 through respondent No. 5 and corresponding GOMs. No. 118 dated 25-8-2023 issued by respondent No. 3, which extended the time limit for passing the orders, are without authority of law and ultra vires to section 73(10) of the GST Act 2017 and section 168A of GST Act, 2017 and violative of articles 14, 19(1)(g) 21 and 265 of the Constitution of India. 3. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the show cause as also the impugned order was that the show cause notice as also the assessment order have not been signed by the 1st respondent either digitally or physically as is otherwise required under Rule 26 of the Central Goods and Services Taxes Rules (for short CGST). 4. The learned counsel for the Department submits that he has not received any satisfactory instructions from the Department as to why the show cause notice as also the order of assessment have not been signed by the 1st respondent while issuing the same either digitally or physically. 5. It is at this juncture relevant to take note of the recent decision of the High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No. 29397 of 2023 and stood decided on 10-11-2023, wherein the Honble Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court had under similar circumstances in paragraph Nos. 7 to 12 held as under: SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers 2024 TaxPub(GST) 924 (Tel-HC)

IN THE TELANGANA HIGH COURT

P. SAM KOSHY & N. TUKARAMJI J.

Silver Oak Villas LLP v. Asstt. CST & Ors.

Writ Petition No. 6671 of 2024

14 March, 2024

Appellant by: M NAGA DEEPAK

Respondent by: Advocate - Special Govt Pleader for State Tax, Dominic Fernandes, Gadi Praveen Kumar Dy. Solicitor Gen. Of India, A Kranti Kumar Reddy

ORDER

P. Sam Koshy

Heard Mr. Venkata Prasad P. learned counsel representing Mr. M. Naga Deepak, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Mr. A. Kranti Kumar Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No. 4 and Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for respondent No. 5. Perused the material available on record.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief:

to issue a writ, order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus;

I. declaring the impugned order vide Ref. No. ZD361223015515R, dated 8-12-2023, passed by the 1st respondent under the provisions of CGST/TGST Act, 2017 as being void and arbitrary.

II. declaring that the Notification No.09/202-C.T dated 31-3-2023 issued by respondent No. 4 through respondent No. 5 and corresponding GOMs. No. 118 dated 25-8-2023 issued by respondent No. 3, which extended the time limit for passing the orders, are without authority of law and ultra vires to section 73(10) of the GST Act 2017 and section 168A of GST Act, 2017 and violative of articles 14, 19(1)(g) 21 and 265 of the Constitution of India.

3. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the show cause as also the impugned order was that the show cause notice as also the assessment order have not been signed by the 1st respondent either digitally or physically as is otherwise required under Rule 26 of the Central Goods and Services Taxes Rules (for short CGST).

4. The learned counsel for the Department submits that he has not received any satisfactory instructions from the Department as to why the show cause notice as also the order of assessment have not been signed by the 1st respondent while issuing the same either digitally or physically.

5. It is at this juncture relevant to take note of the recent decision of the High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No. 29397 of 2023 and stood decided on 10-11-2023, wherein the Honble Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court had under similar circumstances in paragraph Nos. 7 to 12 held as under: