Sri M. Uma Shankar, learned counsel represents Sri v. Veeresham

Deputy State Tax ffircer. Karimnagar STU, Karrnnaqar Division, D. No. 7-.1_ 25, 'tst Ftoor, T.N.G.o euiuins, t'd;kail;'il;t","ii#rnrs* District _ 505 The Joint Director. O/o. Directorale General of GST lntelligence, Hyderabad Zonat Unit, H. No. 1-63/42t12tpti N; 11i Kavuri Hi,s, Guttata Begumpet, Madhapur, ityueraoio-- sooijS:-'- ' State of Telangana, Represented by_its principal Secretary to fuvernment, I:,r_91y. Department (Commerciat fax), Seiletaia"t"Comprex. Hyderabad, lelangana. "rni"ziz."bro"r_e, -..RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in th€ affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order, or direction more particurarry one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the notice issued by Respondent No. 1 vide ref no 2A361124oo0784v dated 01.11.2024 in Form GST REG- i7 and impugned order vide order ref no 2A360125038750R in Form GST REG-19 dated 16.o1 '2025 as being void, arbitrary, ilegar, without authority of raw and without jurisdiction, viorative of the principres of Naturar Justice apart from being viorative of Articles 1a, r 9(1xg), 21 and 265 of the constitution of rndia, and to consequentlySetasidethenoticeandlmpugnedorderbyresitoringtheGST registration o{ the F'etitioner. ANO:l€F1025 - Petition un ir:r Section 151 CPC praying that in the circu nstances stated intheaffidavitfil(cinSupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmzrybepleasedto Suspend the Op.ration of lmpugned Order ref no 2A36012 50118750R in Form GST REG-19 rlater j 16.01 .2025 in the interest of Justice and e'qu ity as otherwise' the Petitioner ,rvill b e put to irreparable loss and hardship' Counsel for the F'etitioner: SRI M'UMA SHANKAR' REP' FOR SRI V.VEERESHAM Counsel for the t{espondent No'1 & 3: SRI T'CHAITANYA KIRAN' AGP' REP' FOR SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPL GP FOR STATE ']I'A,X Counsel for the llespondent No'2: M/s' PRAVALIKA' REP' FOR SRI DOMINIC FERNANDEI], :5r' SC FOR CBIC 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.4539 of 2O2S ORDER (Per the Hon'ble the Acttng Chief Justire Sujog Paul): Sri M. Uma Shankar, learned counsel represents Sri V. Veeresham, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri T' Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, for respondent Nos.l and 3 and Ms- Prava-lika, learned counsel representing Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, for respondent No.2.

3. With the consent, IinallY heard. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution assails the show cause notice dated 01.1 l -2024 whereby the peti tioner's registration was suspended rt'ith effect from Ol.ll.2024. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the final order of cancellation of registration dated 16 .Ol .2025.

4. The sheet-anchor argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per the prescribed Form GST REG-17, the ,/ ,/ 2 Department rs rnder a statutory obligation to assign reilsons on The reasons mt:nt ioned in which shoq' ca:se notice is based the impugrred :ih ou' cause notice are as under: \ 1 4 Rr I,: 2l(e)-person avails ITC in violation o.' ,f-, , p-ui.io"" of section 16 of the Act or thtr rtt ts made thereunder 2. R -rte 21(b)-Person issues invoice or bi1[ rvices or both of the Act, o : r,r,i lrout supPlY of goods or se in ' iolat ion o[ the Provisions th : rules made thereunder Rr Lle 2 1(a)-person does not conduct an./ Lr srrness'from declared place of business St c tion 29 (e)- registration obtained by means fraud, willful misstatement or sr ppression of facts. s,trbmitted that the aforesaid averrnents / contents are only alleged violation of Rules but does not 3ol1tain any factual details rr reasons therefor' This Court in W'P No'2008O of 2024 has ,l sapproved such notice and set aside the same' For the sante -()ason, interference may be made' It it,; 5 The I -aver is opposed by iearned counsel for the 6. respondenl s r urd i[ is submitted that the pelitioner frl':d reply to the impugne< shorv cause notice and thereafter' irr'pr'rgned final order was par,sed r,r'hich is in accordance with law' 7 Wc h r;e heard learned counsel for the parties at length' Th e I t produced portion of impugned shorv cause notrce 8. shows that, tl rc sard contents are allegations relating t c breach of \ \ i I I ! ! I I i i t ! I I I 3 certain Rures but the impugned show cause notice nowhere provides the factual foundation on the strength of which, the said Rules were allegedly breached by the petitioner. There exists attachment to the show cause notice but the reasons are required to be mentioned in the show cause notice itself. The assessee is not expected to travel through a document which is annexed with the show cause notice and which is an internal correspondence between two departrnental authorities and then try to gather what could be the allegation against him. The show cause notice should be specific and should be pregnant with necessary detais. In absence thereof, this court in aforesaid W.P.No.2008O of 2024 interfered with a show cause notice by recording following findings: "6. We have previously interfered with similar loli::" u.hich_ were not pregnant with necessary factual details and descripti,ons. We find substancJ in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner tha[ such a notice runs contrary to principles of natural justice and deprir.es the assessee to frle an Lffective .epty to the show cause notice In previous occasion, in W-.p.No. t Z+OO of 2024, this Court has held as under: "The singular reason assigned in the impugned notice dated 29.O2.2O24 reads asunder: '1. Section 29(2)(e)_registration obtained bv means of fraud, willful misrepresentation o-r suppression of facts". Apart from this batd statement, there edsts nothing in the show cause notice which can throu, light as to what is the nature of Traud,or Vitlful misrepresentation' or .suppression i t I I 4 tac t bv the petilioner' Thus' show cause nolicc ;J ar example of non applicarion o [' ,;,; -ird.' I" absence of factual basis and necessar1 de erils, notice becomes urlnerable' This Court. recently' considered. ttriri 7 as )rct in T S R Exports (supra) and held a't '9. We ftnd subsistence inthe aroumen t of t .S draun is total lu absent tn the shou) cause ;lottce The sholl) cause no ttce UL OUT -should spelt out the constdered opt mon, ackdrop of breach on the b factual t has strenqth o uhich the departmen ,eiected and conclu ded thot Section 29 t2) the Act, can be inuoked If mtntmum @) o facht al backd roD and nature ofbreach is tTot mentioned u)ith aca) raclt and I,DOS not Ln a precB LOn, DositLon to file reP lu 10. The Apex Court expressed the need of such notice in Canara Bank irtuon "'of us. Debasis Das [2OO3l 4 SCC 557' at pord No.l 5, whtch reods os under: the petitlone r Dreclse II mus It should Notice is the f]st timb of this "15 pinciple uno mbtqtt deterunina tiueltl of the case he hos to meet Time gtuen for the purpot" should be' adequate so as fo enable him to make his' of a notice. rep resentQtion.. Irt the obsence the kirrri C|tci such reasorrabk; the order Passed becomes a pportLtntlA , teLl. Thus. it i-s but essentiaL whollg uitia sttoultl l,c put on notice "f tht thot a PortY CASC before anY ar)ueise order is Passed of the most natural iustice. It i:; Lmportant pittciPles o.l e of Jair PlctY. The after oll an aPProued tL cl signtf.conce aru7 concept has qoine shodes with tnte..." in-st htm. 'fhis rs one )1. In the Rajesh Kumar us' CLT 12006l 157 Taxrnan 168/287 ITR 91/[2007] 2 5 SCC 181, the Apex Court at para No.61, held as under ".6!.a..ru notice issued. maA onlA contain brieflg the issues tuhich tn" L""..fng oJficer thinks to be necessary. ,ltte reasorr" assigned therefor need nit be detailed ones. Bu that unuld rnt m.ean Drincipl,es of iustice are not to be lied witL Onla because ertain consequences uould. erlsue if tfLe pnnciples. of natural justice are reqtired to be complied with, the sam.e bg ttsity wouti not mean that the court uloutd. not it sist on complging with hp fundamentat principles of lau..." 12. I-hi-s Court in Si A uanthika fui Venkata us. Depufu State Tax Oficer l2o24l I s9 taxtvtnn.com 235/93 GSTL 311 (Te langana.)/[W.P.No.1596 of 2O24, doted 23- 1-2O24l and S.B. Traders us. The Srpenntendent [20221 145 taxmann com ss6/[2023] e6 GST 13/69GSTL 175 (Telangana)/ lW.p. Nos.39498 and 395O2 of 2022, dated 28- 1 O-2O221, interfered with the i qned l) roceedur4s and order therein because the u)ere not metltioned ruhile NQ s aqarnst the petitio ners therei n. 13. Needless to mention that the shou.t cause notice dated O9. i i.2O23 became tle f2yndalion for issuance of orders dated 2-9 I 1 2023 ctnd 23.02.2'024, sine the foundation cannot sustain juddal scrurinA. the entire edifice of orderc possed thereupon are liabli to be jettisoned.". proceedi initiati (Emphasis Supplied)

8. Sir.rce the show_cause notice alrd suspension of ,Xi:l'll:l rs fuunded upon a cr5rptic ,,&". aatJ Itl.0-1.2O2+. borh are set aside. O" ,.guf* t*i"l *I arc, pain[ullr norrcing this kind of notces-, ;;;; r'ithour assrgning adequate reasons,,h;il;;"":i l1\paler rs suddenly_ suspended. l" ll : _*.*-.,, ". .,oti.", :;.'' ; Jl ": I'-.i:,?.".f "n .it,.'..p.?'".;;;;.;l ;: ;ffi:: ;:f #:iH il "b;;;;;i "? i i I 5 insen silive and mechanical manner. th e registrations are being suspended by issuing defec'live show-cause notices Such orders certainl)' have r:r adverse impact on the livelihood of ta-rpayc r and hits Article 21 of the Constitution. 'l'h e authr:nties must remind themselves that the words 'LIFE'zrrd TILE'contain same letters. Every file has a ne::us with somebody's 'life' or liberty. Thus, the authcrities should sensitize themselves and should not p 1ss order/notice in the mechanical manner it is pa;s;ed in the present case. We hope a-rld trurrt t]-at, henceforth, the authorities will take care of this aspect. Learned counsel for the petition('r insiste,l for irnposition of costs. Faced with this, Sri P.Sri Harsha, learned Assistant Governmeltt Plead e:-, submits tJ:at he will appraise th e au thr:rrities about observation of this Court so Lhrlt henccforth such mistakes do not occur' [n vieu''lf ttris rssurance, in the instant case, we are nr)t irnpor;ing any costs on the respondents." I:r view of aforesaid, the aforesaid impug ned 7 . show cau se notice is liable to be interfered with beca use it does nr,t disclose minimum/elementary factual '1e1ai1s on the basis of which power under Section 29 of tre Act is invoke 1 Mere reproduction of offending clat tst' or enabling trrovision cannot be a reason to givc stam:) of approval [o a show cause notice ''vhich lacks mir rrr tlm essential letails.

8. Fbsultantly, the impugncd shon' c:r.use Irc'tice dated '24.)5.2024 is set asidc. Libcrry is rescrved lo the responderll:s to proceed against the pctitic'n er in accordar()e with law. Sri Sn'aroop Oorilla, It:ar ned Speciat Cic'vernment Pleader for State Tax, assur,:d the Court tJla t this order will be brought to the r)otice of the concernerl authorities and he t'ill appraise thlrr to eschew tL e practice of issuing such cryptic noticc.

9. costs." l.<:cordingly, this Writ Petitlon is .rllorvt d. No

9. In the instant case, the impugned shos- cause notice, in our opinion., r Lrns contrary to the principles laid d:ru n by this Court in aforr:said W.P.No.2008O of 2O24. The d ep artmental t t l \ 7 authorities must understand the difference between the teasons, and tonclusions,. Under the head .reasons,, infact departmental authorities have recorded their conclusion that the petitioner has breached certain Rules mentioned hereinabove. On what basis and on what factual details such violation has taken place is not spelled out. Thus, the impugned show cause notice which became foundation of issuance of impugned final order is bad in law. Since the foundation i.e., impugned show cause notice is cryptic and bad in law, the edihes standing of said cr54ptic notice by impugned final order also cannot sustain judicial scrutiny.

10. The decision making process adopted by the respondents and the impugned show cause notice cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. t I 1 1' Resurtantly, the impugned show cause notice dated ol.ll.2024 and consequentiar finar order dated r6.or.2o2s are set aside. At the cosr of repetition, it may be noticed that if the show cause notice itself is cr-vptic, it cannot gain life if certain reasons are assigned rn the final order. Consequent upon setting aside of impugned show. cause notice and final order on technical grounds i.e., violation of principles of natural justice, )t 8 the responderts deserve liberty to proceed agajnst the petitioner in accordarce rvith law afresh Acc,rrrUngly, the Writ Petition is allowed t'; rhe extent 12. indicated ab< r e. It is made clear that this Co'rr-" has not expressed z:rtr :pinion on merits of the case' No cos! s. Intr::rlrr:utory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed To, //TRUE COPY// SD/-V.KAVITHA ,ASSIbTI\NT REGISTRAR ,t SE:CTION OFFICER \

1. The Derpu y State Tax Officer, Karimnagar STU, Karimna-g;rr Division, D No 7-1-25,'1s. Floor, T.N.G.O Building, Mankamma Thota, Karimnagar District - 505 001

2. The Jo nt [)irector. O/o. Directorate General of GST lntr:lli'3ence, Hyderabad Zonal t.Jni , H No. 1-63t42t12, Plot No. 211 and 212 lllo':k-B, Kavuri Hills, Guttala Bt g umpet, IVladhapur, Hyderabad - 500033.

3. The Prrnc tal Secretary to Government, Revenue Dep:rlrnent (Commercial Tax) Sec etariat Complex, Hyderabad, Telangana 4. One Cr) tr SRI V.VEERESHAM, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One C() k SRI DOI\4|N|C FERNANDES, Sr. SC FOR CE lC [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPL GP FOli l:iTATE TAX' High Court f or I1e State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD ( c pies 7 BSR GJ HIGH COUFI.T ATED:04/03 t20 ORDER WP.No.45it9 of 2025 1J .,$$ $. +. ..:' \' -i (( ,J \r ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS t 1 \ W