High Court · 2025

petition under-Article 220 of the 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 olctaring the action of the 1st Respondent in not considering the contentions of the petition& raised in the Grounds of Appeal and passing Appeal orders, dated 22.11.2024 in a Summary manner, without even signature of the 1st Respondent, "i uroitrurv, contrary to the provisions of the IGST/CGST/SGST Acts, 2017 and not valid in the'eye of liw, in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Rule of Law iil 16" iction of the 2nd Respondent in issuing Show Cause Notice, dated ii .Ot.ZOzq and passing the Order, dated 30.04.2024, the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-02, daied 30.04.2024 and Attachment to Form GST DRC-07 dated so.oq.zoz+ issued by the 3rd Respondent, without any signature either physically oi Jigitrrrv, is not valid in the eye of law (3) the abtion of the 2nd Respondent in not ;";ifu i;* DRC_O1A before passing the orders, as contemptated under Rule -/ --'-- 142(1A) of the IGST/CG:ST/SGST Act2017, amounts to invalid (4) the 'rction of the 2nd Respondent in not glenerating verifiable DIN in the Notices and orders, as not valid in the eye of lavr . and consequently set aside the Appeal ( )rder' dated 22.11.2024 issued by tl'e 1st Respondent. and the Order, dated 30042024' the of the order irr Form csT DRC_07, dated 30.04.2024 and Atrachment to il;;;,y Form cST DRC-OZ datr:d 30.04.2024 issued by the 3rd Respondent, for the tax period 2018- 1 9 uncler th,: IGST/CGST/SGST Acts 2017 , as null and vo d lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstant res stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may bt' pleased to s,.p"na the Operation of the Appeal order, dated 22.11.2024 issuel by the 1St n"iponO"nt. and the Order, dated 30.O4.2O24, the Summary of the O'der in Form GST DRC-07, dated 30.04.2024 issued by the 2' Respondent and Atla_chment to FoTmGSTDRC-07dat:d30.04.2024issuedbythe3rdRespondeni,forthetax period 2018-19 under tlre IGST/CGST/SGST Acts 2017, pending disposal of the above writ Petition, as cthenivise, the Petitioner will be put to sevt,re loss and hardship. Counsel for the Petitiorrer:SR!. SHAIK JEELANT BASHA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI T. CHAITANYA KIRAN AGP REPRESENTING FOIR $RI SWAROOP OORILLA SPL. GP FOR STA] E TAX 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.l1410 of 2o25 ORDER (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chtef Justice Sujoy Poul): Sri Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T. Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, for the respondents. Yadagiri, party-in-person.

2. The challenge mounted in this petition is to the appellate order dated 22.11.2024. The singular ground of attack to this appellate order is that the grounds raised in the appeal memo have not been considered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by taking this Court to the 'discussions and lindings' portion, urged that from paragraph Nos.6 to 9, the learned appellate authority has mentioned about the background and reproduced the relevant provision of the statute. Thereafter, the appellate authority opined that the petitioner has not submitted any documentaqr evidence in support of short payment of tax under the Integrated 7 Goods arLd Sr:rvices Tax Act, 2Ol7 and raised cerlain claims. Thereafter, tht: appellate authority has recorded as ur der \ ' r. 1 . Since the appellants has not availi d the oppc,rtunity of the personal hearings to submit their obje,:Lions in their support and not submitt€d doctLrnentary evidence as per thi provision fr rr the CGSI'/ SGST Act, 2077 there is no orher $ ay to disprse the case as dismissed and therefore the actic,n of the proper ofhcer in passing the imp rgned order is found to be in order, r.,t'arrantir g no intelference." He subrr.its l.hat even assuming that the petitior er did not appear for personal hearing, the appellate authority \.ras under a statutory obli;3ation to consider the appeal of the p,:titioner on merits. The appeal is pregnant with relevant grorrnds which ought to l-rave been considered by the appellate autho-ity. 4 I-,,earnr:d Assistant Government Pleader, r epresenting learned SpecirL Government Pleader for State Tax, ha'; supported the impugned order and urged that the appellate at thority has passed the impugned appellate order in accordance with law.

5. \\/e hrure heard iearneci counsel for the par ties on the aforesaid asp€ ot 6 A car:ful reading of the appeal memo wit r appellate impugnecl orcit:r makes it clear that the aJgument of learned counsel for ttr: petitioner has substantial force. The petitioner 3 has raised various grounds in its appeal memo. Learned appellate authority has reproduced the factual background and thereafter, reached to the conclusion that the petitioner has not submitted any documentary evidence" The appellate authority further opined that since the petitioner did not atterid the personal hearing, there is no other way to dispose of the case but to dismiss it. We are unable to give our stamp of approval to such approach and linding. If a written appeai was filed, it was imperative for the appellate authority to deal with the grounds raised in the appeal even if the petitioner was absent .during the personal hearing. There is no iota of discussion in the entire appellate impugned order regarding the grounds taken in the appeal memo. 7 . Resultantly, the impugned appeilate order dated

22.1I.2024 deserves to be jettisoned and we do so by directing the petitioner to appear before the appellate authorit5z on

24.04.2025 at 11:30 A.M., for which no separate notice will be required to be issued. On such appearance, the appellate authority shall rehear the petitioner as per appellate authority's convenience and pass a fresh order in accordance law. 4

8. With aforesaid and without expressing any rpinion on merits of the case, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Irrterlc,r:utory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. SD/.S. MALLII(ARJUNA RAO SI$TA NT REGISTRAR /ITRUE COPY// ^q SEC:TION OFFICER Telangana. ra x s e{u n d e ra b r d D ivi s io n' Sth ,*% Iii,Bj?,*?:l1 s:g'[,ff] "&T""ff :1" , 2. The Deputy Commissioner (ST)' Sangareddy-l' Nizamabad Division' 3. The Assistant (lommissioner (ST) (FAC)' Sangareddy-l' Circl'-'' Nizamabad' 4. The Principal Secretary, Revenue (CT) Department' Telangarra Secretariat' 5. ONC CC; tO SRI. SHAIK JEELANI BASHA AdVOCAIE IOPUCI 6 Two CCs to GP for STATE TAX' High Court for the State of Telangana at Telangana. HYderabad. HYderabad. [3tUT] rb, l

7. Two CD CoPies KKS Ls q- :.?FQgh.!q ?.,r . -- HIGH COURT DATED:1710412,025 I \ ol'19 a .$ z + F. IY o L: "-i.\ \to'' 9 { + ORDER WP.No.11410 of 2025 DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS a 1o cofd #il,