Ivl/s.Sahithi Marketers v. 1. The Superintendent of Central Tax

Petition Under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction declaring. (1) the action of the 1st Respondent in passing the Summary of Order in Form DRC-07, dated 03.05.2024 levying CGST/SGST, lnterest and Penalty, for the tax period 201 B-19 under the CGST/SGST Act 2017 , without any signature either physical or digital, is not valid in the eye of law. (2)the action of the '1St Respondent in passing the Summary of Order in Form DRC-07, dated 03.O5.2024, is barred by limitation as the 3rd Respondent has issued Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax, dated 28.12.2023 extended the time to complete the t Assessment for the tax period 2018-19 upto 30.04.2024 only and hence the Summary of Order in Form DRC-07, dated 03.05.2024 is not valid. (3) the action of the 1st Respondent in passing the Order-in-Original, which is not prescribed under the CGST/SGST Act 2017, is not valid in the eye of law. (4) the action of the 1st Respondent in not serving the Order-in-Original and Summary of Order in Form GST DRC-07 in physical mode, simply uploaded the same in the GST Portal, is not a valid service. |.A.NO:1 OF 202s Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Operation of the summary of order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 03.05.2024 and the Order-in-Original, dated 24.042024 passed by the 1"t Respondent, for the tax period 2018-19 under the CGST/SGST Act 2O17, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, as otherwise, the Petition will be put to severe loss and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI MOHAMMED RAFI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.'l & 3 : SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES (SENIOR STANDTNG COUNSEL FOR CBtC) Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI K.RAJESH REDDY The Court made the following ORDER , THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION No.4OOS of 2025 ORDER: (Per tlrc Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujog Paul) Sri Mohammed RaIi, learned counsel representing Sri Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, for respondent Nos. I and 3.

2. Heard on admission.

3. The petitioner takes exception to the summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07, dated O3.O5.2O24, and the Order-in Original (O.I.O.) dated 24.O4.2024 (Ex.P.2l.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised three fold submissions. Firstly, it is submitted that GST DRC-07, dated O3.O5.2O24, rs barred by time. The time was .extended by Notifrcation No.56 of 2023 upto 3O.O4.2O24 and DRC-O7 is passed thereafter. The second argument is that under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2Ol7 (for short 'the GST Act"), there is no provision to pass the O.I.O. dated 24.04.2O24. Thirdly, it is argued that DRC-O7 dated 03.O5.2024 does not have any physical or tal signature. 1 j I 1 Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC pointed out that

5. the order dated 24.04.2O24 does contain physical signature and it is passed on 24.04.2024 which is well within the time. The limitation was extended upto 3O.O4.2024. DRC-07, dated O3.O5.2O24, is only a summary of the O.I.O. and whether or not it is signed wili not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. He further submits that O.I.O. is passed in consonance with Section 73 of the GST Act. By placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in CCT v. GLAXO SMITH KLINE CONSIruER HEALTH CARE LIMITEDI, it is submitted that the petitioner could have preferred an appeal within ninety (90) days extendable by thirty (30) days under the GST Act. The petitioner has not filed the petition within aforesaid time. This point is considered by the Apex Court to the aforesaid case and in view of principles laid d.own therein this petition may not be entertained.

6. We have heard the parties at length.

7. The Apex Court in GLAXO SMITH KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE's case (supra) opined as under: "19. We rnay now revert to the Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Etectronics Corpn. of India Ltd. lElectronics Corpn. of htdia Ltd. v. [Jnion of India, 2018 SCC Online Hyd 21 : (2018) 36i ELT 22), which had adopted the view taken by the Full I (2020) l9 scc 681 I J Bench of the Gujarat High Court ir Panoli Intermediate (lndia) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India lPonoli Intermediate (lndia) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 2015 SCC Online Guj 570 : AtR 2015 Guj 9711 and also of the Karnataka High Court it Phoenix Plosts Co. v. CCE lPhoenix Pla,sts Co. v. CCE,2013 SCC Online Kar 10432: (2Ol3l 29a ELT 4811 . The logic applied in these decisions proceeds on fallacious premise. For, these decisions are premised on the logic ttrat provision such as Section 3 I of the 2OO5 Act, cannot curtail the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of t}:,e Constitution. This approach is faulty. It is not a matter of taking away the jurisdiction of the High Court. In a given case, the assessee may apprgach the High Court before the statutory period of appeal expires to challenge the assessment order by way of writ petition on tlte ground that the same is without jurisdiction or passed in excess of jurisdiction - by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction including in flagrant disregard of law and rules of procedure or in violation of principles of natura,l justice, where no procedure is specified. The High Court may accede to such a cha-llenge and can also non-suit tJle petilioner on the ground that alternative efficacious remedy is available and that be invoked by the writ petitioner. However, if the writ petitioner chooses to approach the Hieh Court after expirv of the ma*ximum limitation period of 60 days prescribed under Ser:tion 3 I of the 2OO5 Act. the Hieh Court cannot disresard the statutorv period for redressal of the grievalce and entertain the writ petition of such a partv as a matter of course. Doing so would be in the teeth of the orinciple underlving the dictum of a three-Judee Bench of this Court in ONGC IONGC v Guiarat Enerqu ?ransmisslon Corpn- Ltd., (2ol7l 5 SCC 42 (2017\ 3 SCC (Civ) 471 In other words, the fact that the High Court has wide powers, does not mean that it would issue a writ which mav be inconsistent with the legislative intent resardinq the dispensation explicitly prescribed under Section 31 of the 20O5 Act. That would render the lesislative scheme and intention behind the stated provision otiose." (Emphasis Supplied) I

8. Admittedly, the petitioner had a remedy of appeal under the GST Act and did not avail such remedy. This petition is not filed within the statutory time fmit prescribed under the GST Act. Thus, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in GLAXO SMITH KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LIMITED (supra), v/e find substalce in the argument of learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC that this - \ 1 petition is. not liable to be entertained. Otherwise, it will be against the scheme and intention of the statutory provision' The O'I'O' dated 24.04.2024 contairted physical signature and it is issued within the limitation period which was extended upto 3O'O4'2O24' DRC-07 is only a 'summary of order' and even if it did not contain any signature, it will not cause any prejudice to the petitioner'

9. For these cumulative reasons, admission is declined' lO.Accordinglv,theWritPetitionisdismissed'Thepetitionercan avail the remecly under the relevant statute, if law so permits' No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /-\ ECTION OFFICER Hanumannagar, Karimnagar - 505 00'1 ' - -. to ,,. ,n" superintendent of central rax, Karimnagar (urban) Range, 8-7-296/1 ' 2. The Secreta.v, unio"'oiliJi'' Hllinittw of Finance' North Block' New Delhi 3. The Chairman, Central Board of lndirect Taxes and Customs' Ministry of 110 001. Finance, o"prrt,.ntlr-{i"r'"' rlortn Block' central Secretariat' New Delhi 100 001 . +. ONC CC tO SRI SHAIK JEELANI BASHA' AdVOCAIC TOPUC] 5. one cc to sRl DoiliNi6;Eir'reloes iseuton srRruotruc couNSEL 6. One CC to'SRl K.RAJESH REDDY' Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD CoPies FOR CBIC) Advocate [OPUCI SA BS V\-- I I HIGH COURT DATED:2010212025 ORDER WP.No.4005 of 2025 ( .5 J )- rA 16 25 FE B ?ffi Dt. , ., )(:. i, Z CI \\ DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. o^\ c\.o\^"" \4c