The High Court · 2025

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 Writ of fi,4andamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction declaring- (1)theSectionl6(2Xc)readwithSectionalQ)oftheIGST/CGST/SGSTAct 2017 is ultra vires to Article 1 4 1 9( 1 )(g ), 21 , 265 and 300A of the Constitution of India, (2)theactionofthe2ndRespondentinpassingtheorder-in.original,dated

22.12.2023forthetaxperiod2017-181o2o19-2O,levyingTax,lnterestand Penatty and passing a Composite Order covering three financial years' instead of passing Orders for each financial year separately' that too under _-F. ... ,| ? Section 73174 o'f the IGST/CGST/SGST Acl 2O17, instead of passing the Proceedings under Section 73 of the IGST/CGST/SGST Act 20'1 7, without establishing ary fraud or misstatement, as arbitrary, contrary to law, without .jurisdiction and against the Principles of Natural Justice and Rule of Law, and also tlre same is contrary to Article 1a 19(i)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, (3) the action o{ the 1st Respondent in issuing Show Cause Notice No.O7l2O23i24, dated 22.09.2023, without any signatu.e, is nonest in the eye of law and basing on the nonest Show Cause Notice, passing Order in Original No.80r2023-(GST), dated 22.12.2023 is not valid in the eye of law, (4) the action of the 3rd and 4th Respondents in issuing Notices and passing the Summary of Orders in Form cST DRC-07, dated 30 0'1 .2024 and 13.08.2024, for the tax period 2017-18 to 2019-20, without any signature either physir:al y or digitally in the Notices and Orders, are not valid in the eye of law, (5) the action of the 3rd and 4th Respondents in issuing Notices and passing the Summary of Orders, without generating DIN in the Orders as per Circular No.12814712O19-GST, dated 23.12-2019 and as per W.P.No.320 of 2022, dated 1t\.07.2022 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, are not valid, and consequently set aside the Order-in-Original NO.B0/2023-(GST), dated 22.12.2023 for the tax period 2017-18 to 2019-20 passed by the 2nd Respondent ard the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07 for 2017- 18, dated 30.Ol.2024, the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC- 07 for 2018-19, dated 30.01.2024 and the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07 for 2019-20, dated 30.01.2024 passed by the 3rd Respondent and also the Order-in-Original No.O712024-25(GST), dated 09.08.2024 and the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 13.08.2024 passed by the 4th Respondent for the tax period 2O19-2O under the IGST/CGST/SGST Act 2017 , as, nLrll and void. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under llection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the 3rd Responderrt trr revoke the Garnishee Notice in Form GST DRC-13. dated

19.03.2025 issued by the 3rd Respondent to the 6th ResPondent, Pending disposal of the above Writ Petition' as otheruise the Petitioner will be Put to severe loss and hardshiP ,' .// IA NO: 20 F 2025 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 the Order-in-Original No 80/2023-(GST)' dated 22.12.2o23forthetaxperiod20,17-181o2019-20passedbythe2,'dRespondent. the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07 for 2017-18' dated 3001 2024' the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07 for 20 18-'19' dated 30 01 2024 and the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07 for 2019-20 dated 30.O1.2024 passed by the 31(1 Respondent and also the Order-in-Original dated Og.O8.2024 and the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07' dated 134)8.2024 passed by the 4th Respondent for the tax period 2019-20 under the IGST/CGST/SGST Act 20.17, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition as otherwise, the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship SRI V.RAJESHWAR RAO Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOHAMMED RAFI - TMP DULY ASSISTED BY Gounsel for the Respono"nt uos'i fo 4: SRI DoMlNlc FERNANDES' senior Counsel for the Respondent No'5: GP FOR GOMMERCIAL TAX Counsel for the ResPondent No'6: - The Court made the following: ORDER standing counsel for CBIC r';:l'iE"re :.Y? TI{E II OI.I,B LE THE CHIEF IUSTI E SRI ARE rI KUMAR SINGI-I AND TIIE HON'BLE SRI IUSTI CE G. M.MO HIUDDIN Vrit Peti tlo n No.211 77 of 2025 Order. N,[t-. N,Iohammcd Rah.f'MI], learncd counsel frrr thc petrd()re1 appears in virtual mode and he is clu\, assisrcd bl_ NIr. \'.ltaicsh\var Rao, Icarncd counsel appearing in pl.rr.sical modc.

2. N{r. I)omrnic Fernandes, learnecl Senior Standing Cour-rsel frr Ccntral Board of Incomc Taxcs and Custorns (Cillq ap.rears [or respondents No.1 to 4. 3. 'fhe instant Writ pcution has been preferred t,ith the fbllorving [)ra\rers: '(i) Secrion 16(2)(c) rcad wrth Sectior.r 41(2) oE rhe tGiil //CGST/SGST Act 2017, is uhra ures to ,\rticles t1, i9(1)(g), 21,265 and 300A of the Consrirurjon ol. lndia; (ii) I'he action o[ the 2"d respondent in passrrrg the ( )rclcr-rn Original dated 22.12.2023 for the tax period ilOl r 18 to 2019-2O,lerying -Iax, Interesr and l)enals and passing a Composite Order covenr.rg thrce 2 "vithout Frnancial years, instead of passing Ordcrs for each Frnancial )rear scparately, that too under Sccrion 73/l'1 of the IGS'f/CGST/SGST' Act, 2017, instead ot passing the Ptoceedrngs under Section 73 of the IGST/CGST/SGS'I Act, 201 7, establishing any ftaud or misstatement as arbitrary, contrar\i to larv, -*'ithout iurisdrction and against thc Principles of Natural Jusuce and l(ule of Law, and also the sarne is cuntrau to Aruclcs 14. l9(l)[q; and ]l ot rhe Constituuon of India; (ui) The action of the 1" Respondent in issuiog Show Cause Nouce No O7 /2023/24 dated 22 09 '2023, without any stgnaturc, is nonest in the cye o[ larv and basing on the nonest Show Cause Notice, passing Order-in-Onginal No.80/2023-(GS l) 22.12.2023, is not valid in the eye of larv; (iv) 'Ihe action of the 3'd and 4'h Respondents in issuing Notices and passing the Sumrnarl' of Otders io Form GST DRC-07 dated 30 01 2024 and 1.3.08.2024, for the tax period 2017-18 ro 2019-20' without any signature either physically or drgitallr.in rhc Nouces and Orders, arc not r alid h rhe er c of law; and (r) The acuon of the 3'd and 4n Respondents in issuing Notices and passing the Summary of Otdets wrthout generating DIN in the Orders as per Circular i {. %ry 3 \o 128/4712019-GST, dated 23.12.2019, ani as per \\' l, \o.321) ol 2022 dated 1g.07.20 22, ::f thc I Ii,n'ble Suprcn'rc (lourt are not valid.,,

1. Lr:arrecl Serior Sranding Counsel for CBIC has brought to the norrce o[ this (]ourt, Common Ordcr darcd 02.01 2025, passcd in \\'.lr.No.1l54 oi 2024 and. batch,, of u.hich \\'.P.No.1[591 of 2O2l forms part, pertains to the petitioner I-rcreir-r. It s stated rhar in the said writ petition, petitioner had challcng,:d t['rc order in-original dated 22.12.2023 and the sumnrarr, of rhc order in Form GST DRC-07 datr:d 30.01.2024, covcting tlLe same tar period 2017_1,9 to 2019_20. The said \\'rit Petirron along rvith the simjlar batch of \[zri, O.rrdor,r, rvas disp,rs<.c'i of by a Coordinate Bench, holding as under: " 11.1 . -l'he COVID_I 9 pandemic created crttaorclinarr, difhcultres which could not have b ee;r anucipated, measured and solved with nlarhematical precision. CO\TD_19 was not a crealion of Govetnmcnt. Thus, hair_splitntg in nra.y aspccts must be eschcwed. For example, the ar:gu ment of Sn l(arthik Ramana puttamreddv 1 4 that in the rnitial notification extendrng lirnitauon' 'spread of CO\TD' was shown as a reason whrch cannot bc a iustification fot issuance of impugned notifications issued after COVID-19 was over' Vhilc dealing wlth such an exLraordinary crisis' (iovernment's acflon must be viewed in a broad pctspective. 1 18. In vicrv o[ our flflding that pcriod berrvecn 28.02.2022 stood cxciudcd lot 15.03.2020 to pcr SuPreme Court's otdet' lirrritation as rcmaining points taised by the petitioncrs relating to legality of impugned notificadons need not be dealt with. 1 19. In this batch of matters' admittedl'v' the petiuoners have a statutory effi'cacrous alternaflve remed,r, of appeal' These mattets were entertained despite availabiJity of above remedy because the peuuoners assailed the impugned notificatrons \os.l3 of 2022, g and 56 of 2023' ln vierv of ordcr of Supreme Court dated t0 0l'2022' since wt' find no rcason and iustificauon 1o itttcrfcre with those noufications' The petrtioners may avaii the stautory remedY of aPPeal' 120. 'Ihc Allahabad High Coutt t'n Graziano Transmissions v' Goods and Services Tax [(202a) ! { I ..:):' 5 19 (,eo r:r r, 82 (,\llahabad)1, this regard hcld as Lr n Ll( r: " il3. Secn irr rhat lighr lhe clccrsions circd b1, lclLrncci coLrnscl lor the pefutioners ,ra fnur,,l t,, l;e disringuishcd. T.he -,wi t pcutions challengrng { h, , issuancc of rhe irnpugned ,rotificaucrns r..,rst tail. I Icaring of all ies..s wherc adjudrcarron pr, rct cdrngs atc pendrng ,rr^1, .a.otnrrr.ncc and bc concludecl, ,ftc, ercl.,ding the duratic,n of s tar o F thc extcnded [mitation to frarnc the ad judtcation orcler. \{,hercvcr adjuclicauon .rtrlcr.s har-c becn passcti arrcl recoverl., s taycd br. hr r ( _ourr, rhc__ yrcrirrorrcr.s shall havc 4i .la;.s rorn roclal to trle rLpprr ,prn te appe:rls. 1 19. i.he .r,rir pc[rtrons arc tl)us disrmssed. i\c, crrdet as r,-., r:os r s. " (f-imphesis Supplicd)

121. 'l'hcsc Writ I)etiti,;rrs arc accordingll, dis;ro:rcc of bv rcscn-ing liberq,. to thc petitioners to avaii thc ren-redr. of starutoq, appeal. Il rhe appcal is prcferred bv thc petrtioners wlthin 45 dar s be.rrrc rhe appellarc ar-rthority, thc said xuth()r1tr. shall consi,:lcr ancl clecicle the appeal on rncrits arici rr shall not be rhrown ovcrboard orr the grourrd of hrnitation. It is made clear thar this Cotrrr l-ralr nor cxprcssed xnt upinron on merits of thc cal;cs. 'I'l-rerc shall be nc_, cirder as to costs. Misccllen,:ous pcurlons pcndiog, if any, shall stand closccl. " I I i j )', 6

5. Learnecl Senior Standing Counsel for (-BIC pointed out that in thc present writ petition, the same order-in-origrnal and thc summar,'\r oI the order, both dated 22122023 and 30'01'2024' lor the same tax period are under challe ngc except that pctitioner has now sought to challenge the uiru o[ Secrion r6(2)(c) r/rv Secrion 41'(2) of thc iGST'/CGST/SGST Acr' 2017 (for short 'the Act')' He submits that the preseut srir pctiuon is hit by thc doctrine o[ constructive res ludicata' Pctitioncr could have raised challe0ge to the uiret of Section 16(2)G) and Secdon 41(2) olthe Act in the earlier rvrit pcution' but it has farlecl to do so' It is submitted that thc causc o[ acdon cannot be split up and made subiect matter o[ repcated procecdings as it is vexalious and against the interests o[ -fhere fore, the Writ Petition may be dismissed' public.

6. Both the learned counsel appearing for the Petl oner vrtually and physically are seeking further time Rc[erence is made to the order dated 22'07 '2025' which reads as under: i I i I I I II $ 7 "Sr. Shark Jeclani Ilasha, learned counscl rcpr( scrr)ring Sri i\[ohammed liafi, learncd corLnscl lcrr rhc pi'ritioncr:. S ri l)orninic lje rnandes, lcarncd. Senior Staoc[ng (-ounscl lor Central Roard of Inclircct f'axes; a-rcl (.ustoms appcars frrr rcspondent Nos.1 ro +. ,tn :rbicctron lras becn taken b.v the lcarned colrnsel tirr respondent \os.1 to .l to rhc mainteir.abifin of the u-rir pctrri(]rr, rs rhe impug;nc.d or-clcrs passed in GS.I procecdings undcr Sr:ctions 73 and 7,1 ol the Ccntral Gc,,rds ancl iiervrces I'ax, 201 7 rvere challengcd in \X,'.P.Nio 10591 ol 2024 and tl.us Court rc[used rc.r intclfere irr rhe rnarter. -l'his time, thc peLitiorrer has noI onh-chalicngcd the acljudrcation crc]ers of the sarnc rLr pcnocl, brrt aiso challcnged the r.ires oF Scc.ion 16(2)(c) of rl.rc abovc said .\ct. -I,his hir br ,:, )nsll.ucLi\ (. tisluJir,tt,t. Le:Lrnecl counsel lor the pctirioner prays Fot: a rveek's ttnc t() ans$,cr. List atrfcr onc wcek.,, )I .aL B

7. 'fhereafter, the matter was once again adjourned on 1g.08.202i. on rr:qlicst of learncd counsel for the pctitioner 'fhcrctorc, the teqr-res t for-adjournment is rcfused' U. C)n a bare pctusal of the prayet made in the instant rvrtt petition, it ts apparent tirat ti.re Petitioner had sought to assail drc verl' samc otder in originai and the summarv o[ the order' both clatecl 22.12.2023 ancl 30 01 2024' for the samc tax periocl' srhich rvere thc sub]cct lnattcr o f \\r.P.No.10591 of 2024, Ft\ecl b1' drc same Petltroncr' Thc saicl rvrit petition rvas disposcd of along rvith a srmilar batch of r'vrit pcritions on 02'01'2025' rvith lt)cr.tv to the peutioner to prefer an appeal' Instcad of prei-ernug an appeal, the petitioner has once again approached this Court against [hc samc order in-original and the summary of the orcler, for thc same tax period' Apart from challenging the impugned order-in-ori'ginal and sLlmmary of the order' the pctirioner has also assailed thc uires of Section 16(2)(c) r/w 41,(2) of thc Act. Such a rccourse is hit by the doctrine of { i constructlve rc: ///dicd/d. Litiganr is not at libertr- ro split the cause of acti()n 21nd rake it up again and auain, thercbr-, not only enguruing the precious time o[ the Court, but also puttin,g tl.re re spondenrs ro prejudicc. 9 Therefcrre , for rhe abovc rcasons, the \X/rit ])ctirjon is not frt to bc entelta:nccl 10 'fire insrant \\'rit Pcutior-r is, accorchngly, disr.r.risscd No COSTS r\s a scc1ur.1, mlsccllaneous pctitions, pending iI anr., srancl ckrsecl . SD/- M . NAGAMANI -.1"1'.1^-' REGISTRAR 7 //TRUE COPY// To 1 2 3 4 PSK. GJP one cc to stir ryloHAIr4[/E g!fu[iilBii;i5'5ilft iYy.=8ff^i;#!;ffl f.ff l?,1?'.,":lse,rorcB,c Two CCs to C;p FOR CON/I relansana, ai H,,d;;;;;"'r[Erlr:lAl rAX' Hish court for the state of Two CD Copir:s ' 'sEcrloN oFFlcER o- /* \, I ), $ ( ., i\ )) a + HIGH COURT DATED:2610812025 ORDER WP.No.21177 ot 2025 ,1.17 1 :. O\' ,', -i,t3" ?g m[[T \',\-D,- 'il - iFiI.Llr- -..-:::::=:-ii DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1