High Court · 2025

Division, Plot no.16 and21, Aditya Towers, sri sai enct"ive, oro eoriJnparry, Secunderabad.

4. The Assistant commissioner ({E), office of the principar commissioner of Central.Tax, Ranga Reddy GST Cbmmissionerate, ViF ii[;; tufiil;;, '' 5. TheDgputy Director, DGGI, HZU, H.No.1-6312t2-12, plot No.212 and213, Hyderabad. Block B, Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a direction or orders, more particularly in the nature of a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, decraring the impugned notice vide REG-17 bearing Reference No. 24360225146953E dated 27-02-2025 cancelling theregistrationofpetitionerasillegalandviolationofArticlelg(tXg)and3004of the Petitioner I.ANO:1 OF 2025 PetitionUndersection,l5lcPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 3 to suspend the operation of the impugned notice vide REG-17bearingReferenceNo.24360225146953Edated27-02-2()25andallow operation of registration of the Petitioner, pending disposal of this writ petition' Counsel for the Petitigner : SRI M.UMASHAANKAR, LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARAING FOR SRI PUPPALA BHARATH NANDAN Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI GADi PRAVEEN KUMAR' DEPUY SOLICITOR GENERAL, OF INDIA Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.2 to 5 : SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES' LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL 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.7 Ol9 of 2o25 ORDER: (Per the Hon'bte the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy paul) Sri M.Umashankar, learned counsel appearing for Sri P.Bharath Nandal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, for respondent Nos.2 to 5.

2. Heard on admission.

3. This writ petition assails the show cause notice dated

27.O2.2025, whereby the petitioner,s registration is suspended arrd it is directed to file reply by 10.03.2025.

4. Criticizing the impugned show cause notice, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is the second visit of the petitioner to this Court. Earlier, respondents issued a show cause notice dated 3O.I0.2024 which resulted with issuarrce of the order of cancellation of registration of the petitioner dated 2l.OI.2O2S. However, when the petitioner assailed the same in the previous 2 round i.e., W.P.No.2210 of 2025, the respondents dec:.ded to drop the proceedings by order dated 2g.O1.2025 and therezrfter, issued the impugned slrou, cause notice dated 27.O2.2O25.

5. The singul.ar ald principal contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is based upon the judgment of the High Court of Judicature for Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad 1n SBQ Steels Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, Central excise and Service Tax, Gunturt. It is submitted that when the show cause notice shows .irat a conclusion has been dranvn, i1. is an idle ceremony to ask the petitioner to l-rle reply ald the show cause notice itself can be interfered with.

6. Learned lltanding Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the language enrployed in the show cause notice shorvs that it is only tentative in nature and whatever is averred is in the shape of only 'allegatiorrs'. No 'conclusions' have been drawn. The attention of this Court is drawn to paragraph No.16 :f the show cause notice u,hich reads thus:- "i6. As M/s Chilukuri has contravened the Section 16(2)(c) as mentiooed above, the registration of the M/s C:hilukuri ' zor+ 1:oo1 e.L.t. res u..r.y 3 Enterprises LLP., GSTIN: 36AASFC7OBSEIZ9, appeats to be liable for cancellation under Rule 2l(ef of the CGST Rules, 2Ol7 . Accordingly, registralion is suspended with effective from 27.O2.2O25." 7 . We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

8. A conjoint reading of paragraph Nos.11 and 16 of the show cause notice shows that the averments are in the nature of 'allegations' and not tonclusions,. Thus, the judgment in SBe Steels Limited (supra) is of no assistance to the petitioner. 9 . This is trite that interference by the writ court at the stage of show cause notice can be made on limited grounds. The petitioner has not assailed the show cause notice on the ground of lack of competence. The Apex Court in Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse2 opined that the scope of interference on show cause notice is limited. It was held as under: "5... Whether the show-cause notice was founded on any iegal premises, is a jurisdictional issue which can be even be urged by the recipient of the notice and such issues also can be adjudicated by the authority issuing the very notice initially, before the aggrieved could approach the court..." , I ' lzooa; : scc ++o 4

10. In view of the aforesaid judgment, we find no reason to interfere in the instant case. If the petitioner files its rtrply within ten days from to,lay, the authorities sha-ll consider the reply and take a decision ir accordance with law.

11. The admission is declined and the writ petition is dismissed with the a-foresalrl observations. No order as to costs Miscellalecus petitions pending, if any, shall star'l closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRI PUPPALA BHARATH NANDAI' Advocate [OPUC] 2. one cc to sRl GADI Pil;;i'Niriirt'rnC' DEPUTY sollclrcR GENERAL 3. ONE CC tO SRI OOIVIUId;LNNANDES' LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL OF INDIA Advor;ate [OPUCI FOR CBIC, Advocate (OPUC)

4. Two CD CoPies SA LS lL \ To HIGH COURT DATED:1910312025 ORDER WP.No.7019 of 2025 r{E ::; T,/r rF {a iJ tj! 11 Arn 2[25 * D5SP/' f C > 6j DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. ( A- a / o