The High Court · 2025

M/s. Empyrean Lifesciences Private Limited, rep. by its Deputy Manager, Mr. Mohamad Ar;abkhan, Plot No.68, 69, 2nd Floor, Jubilee Heights, Madhapur, Hyderabad-500 081 , Telangana. AND 1 Assistant Commissioner Hyderabad. (ST), Ivladhapur-lll Circle, lvladhapur Division,

2. Appellate Joint Commissioner (ST), Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad. 3. State of Telarrgana, rep. by its Secretary to Govemment (CT-ll), State Tax Department, Sjecretariat, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER ...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 Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction by setting aside (a) the impugned order dated 30.8.2024 passed by the 1St Respondent for the tax period April, 2019 to March, 2020 as illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as it is in duplication of the proceedings passed for the same tax period by the 1st Respondent vide brder dated 29.8.2024 and consequently set aside the appeal order dated 18.7.2025 passed by the 2nd Respondent for the tax period April, 2019 to March, 2020, and (b) alternatively, set aside the impugned notice in Form GST DRC-01 vide Ref No.2D3605240616839 daled 29.5.2024 and the proceeding in Form cST DRC-07 vide Ref.No.2D3608241447716 dated 30.8.2024 issued by the Pt Respondent for the tax period April, 2019 to March, 2020 without having any signatures as illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and the Telangana Goods and Services fax Acl, 2017. lA NO: 1 OF 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 declare that the recovery proceedings initiated vide notice in Form GST DRC-13 dated 11.11.2024, by the '1st respondent as illegal and direct the 1't respondent to revoke the notice issued basing on the petitioner's PAN No.. lA NO: 2 OF 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 grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order dated 3O.8.2024 along with proceeding in Form GST DRC-07 vide Ref.No.2D3608241447716 dated 30.8.2024 issued by the 1st Respondent for the tax period April, 2019 to March, 2020 un,Jer the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 pending disposal of the Writ Petition as othent'ise the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship. Counsel for the F'etitioner: SRI K.P.AMARNATH REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI A.SUDARSHAN REDDY. ADVOCATE GENERAL, REP. FOR SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPL. GP FOR STATE TAX WRIT PETITIOi'I NO: 27416 OF 2025 Betwee n: SSV Sri Power Technologies & Services, Rep by its Authorized partner Sekhara rao Nelli, Regd office at Plot No-46, Sai Gokul Nagar, Balapur X Roads, Telangana-500058. AND 1 2 The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Saroornagar, Hyderabad-50000'l . The State of Telangana, through Principal Secretary to Government revenue Department(Commercial Tax), Hyderabad, Telangana. .,.PETITIONER .,.RESPONDENTS 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 a Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in nature of WRIT OF MANDAI\1US (i). Declaring the unsigned impugned show cause notice dated. 09.06.2022, 31- 05-2024 AND 31-05-2024 vide Ref no. 2D36O622O49034M, 2D360524074B533, AND 2D3605240716454. The corresponding unsigned demand order dated 31-08- 2024, 31-OB-2024 and 31-08-2024 vide Ref no. 22D360824153997N, 2D3608241539232, and 2D3608241539141 passed by the Respondent Noc 1 under Section 73 ,:f the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the Financial Year 2019-2020, demanding an amount of SGST Rs. 1,70,2341, CGST Rs 1,70,2341- (SGST Rs.2,3O,6411-, CGST Rs. 2,30,6411-) and SGST Rs. 2,30,6411-, CGST Rs.2,30,6411) under the provisions of CGST/TGST Act, 2017 as being void, arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and without authority of law apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19(1Xg) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia, and to consequently set aside any action taken pursuant thereto and pass such further or other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and prober in the circumstances of the case. (ii). And Violative of article 14, 19(1Xg), 21 and 265 of the constitution of lndia lA NO: 'l OF 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 Stay of operation of impugned unsigned summary order in- DRC-07, 31-08-2024, 31-O8-2O24 and 31-OB-2O24 vide Ref no. 22D360824153997N, 2D3608241539232. and 2D3608241539141 issued by the respondent no. 1 for the tax period 2019-20 under CGST/TGST Acts, 2017 pending disposal of the above Writ petition, as otheMise the petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G,R.S.AKHILESWAR Counsel for the Respondents: SRI A.SUDARSHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE GENERAL, REP. FOR SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPL. GP FOR STATE TAX WRIT PETITION NO: 28893 OF 2025 Between: M/s Hi Reach Broadband Private Limited, H.No-1-B-198, Near LIC o{fice Balasamudram, Hanmakonda Warangal Rural, Telangana, 506 001 Represented by its Director, Mr. Jatoth Modina, S/o Mr. Lachya Nayak Jatoth. ...PETITIONER AND I 2 3 Assistant Commissioner (ST), Warangal Urban lll Circle H.No. 23-6-16311 3rd Floor, Commercial Taxes Office Complex, Behind Vishal Mart, Hunter Road Warangal 506002 State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (CT- ll) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Deputy Commissioner (St), Warangal Stu Warangal, Division Warangal H.No. 23-6-16311 , 2nd Floor, Commercial Taxes Office Complex, Behind Vishal Mart, Hunter Road, Warangal 506002 ...RESPONDENTS 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 a Writ of [\rlandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction- A. the Summary ol show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01, and Attachment to Form GST DRC-01 dated 31.01.2024, issued by the'1st Respondent, under the provisions of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, fot the tax period 2O1B - 19, as uploaded in the GST web portal, B. the order uis 7iJ of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, Summary of the Order in Form GS'l- DRC-07, and Attachment to Form GST DRC-07, all dated 30.O4.2024, passed by the '1st Respondent, under the provisions of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the tax period 2018 - 19, as uploaded in the GST web portal, as arbitrary, bad and non-est in law, barred by time, without jurisdiction, vague are issued without any authority of law. apart from being violative of articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia, and consequently set-aside the same in the interests of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition unde' 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 stay all further proceedings, including any recovery, pursuant to the order u/s 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, and Aftachment to [:orm GST DRC-07, all dated 30.04.2024, passed by the 1St Respondent, under the provisions of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the tax period 2018 - 19, as uploaded in the GST web portal, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINARAYAN TOSHNIWAL Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI A.SUDARSHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE GENERAL, REP. FOR SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPL. GP FOR STATE TAX WRIT PETITION NO: 30267 OF 2025 Between: M/s. VCS Constructions, Represented by Chandrasekhar Vadlamudi, Proprietor 2, 205, Vinayaka Residency - 1, Kausalya Colony, Bachupally, Quthbultapur, Rangareddy, Telangana - 500 090 ..PETITIONER AND 1 2 3 4 Ihe Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Madhapur STU-1 , Gagan Vihar Complex, 6th Floor, Nampally, Hyderabad - 500001 The Assistant Commissioner, Madhapur-lV, Gagan Vihar Complex, 7th Floor, Nampally, Hyderabad - 50000'1 The Appellate Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Hyderabad Rural Division, 5th Floor, C.T. Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad - 500 001 The State of Telangana, Through the Principal Secretary to Government, (Commercial Tax Department), Telangana Secretariat Hyderabad - 5O0 O22 ...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 Writ, Order or direction, particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS. (a) Setting aside the 010 bearing 30.O4.2024 passed by Respondent No reference no. 2D36042408945Y dated 1 confirming demand of Rs. 30,23,5921 for the period 2O18-19, (b) Setting aside the Order-in-Appeal bearing reference no. 2D3608250319055 dated 23.08.2025 passed by Respondent No. 3, (c) Alternatively, condone the delay of 167 days in filing Appeal before Respondent No.1 and direct Respondent No.3 to hear the appeal on merits. (d) Setting aside the recovery of arrears notice bearing reference no. MA3609250552751 dated 23.09.2025. IA NO: 1 OF 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 stay recovery of demands made vide arrears notice bearing reference no. MA360925055275L dated 23.09.2025 in so far as it pertains to 010 bearing reference no.2D36042408945Y dated 30.04.2024 passed by Respondent No.1. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NARENDRA DAVE, REP. FOR M/s. LAKSHMI KUMARAN & SRIDHARAN Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI A.SUDARSHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE GENERAL, REP. FOR SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPL. GP FOR STATE TAX The Court made,the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KI'MAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIIIDDIN w .P.Nos.20731 24077 27416 28893 and 3o267 of 2025 COMM ON ORDER: Mr. K.P.Amarnath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.2O73l and 24077 of. 2025, appears through video conference. Mr. G.R.S.Akhileswar, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.27416 of 2025. Mr. Srinarayan Toshniwal, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.28893 of 2025. Mr. Narendra Dave, learned counsel representing M/s.Lakshmi Kumaran & Sridharan, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.3O267 ol 2025. Mr. A.Sudarshan Reddy, learned Advocate General representing Mr. SweLroop Oorilla, learned Specia-l Government Pleader for State Tax appears for the respondents.

2. All these four rvrit petitions were tagged together on account of similarity of grievances raised by the tax payers in respect of adjudication proceedings under the Telalgana Goods I 2 and Services Tax Act, 20 l7 (hereinafter referred to as the TGST \.1 Act'), Centra.i Goods and Services Tax Act, 201 7 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CGST Act') or Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act by issuance of multiple show cause notices followed by multiple orders passed for the salne tari period. In W.P.No.274 16 of 2025 also, there were multiple show cause notices but with the distinction that the seconcl show cause notice was in the name of some other companv M/s. Anand Enterprises (Page No.35) for the same financial year 2Ol9-2O, but assessment order in-original was passed in the name of the petitioner company. In this case, it is also the grievance of the petitioner that all tax dues have been paid. Out of the total liability i.e., l?s.12,63,O32/- arising out of all these three orders, Tax Credit llTC) from the Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) . Despite that, petitioner's Bank account was attached in Garnishee proceedings dated 28.O3.2025

3. In W.P \1o.20731 of 2025, taking note of the grievance of the petitioner, the following order was passed on 19.08.2025 "Mr.K.P.Amarnath Reddy, learned counsel appears for the petitioner. J Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax appears lor respondents No. I to 3. ln the instant case, respondent No.1 - Assistant Commissioner (ST), Panjagutta -1 Circle, i.e. assessing officer, has issued three show cause notices dated 07.06.2O22, 12.01.2024 and 31.O1.2O24 for the same tax period 2OI8-2O19 under Section 73 of the Telangana Goods ard Services Tax Act, 2017. Three sepa-rate Orders-in-original arising out of the three show cause notices have been passed on the same date 3O.O4 .2024 (Annemre F2) imposing different tax liabilities for the same hnancial year. Petitioner carried one of the assessment orders daled 3O.O4.2O24 arising out of the show cause noticc datcd 3i.01.2024 in appea) (Annexure P3), which has been rejected by the appellate authority, uide order dated 11.07.2025 on grounds of delay. The petitioner has assailed the three show cause notices and three Orders-in-origina-l and also the Order-in-appeal conceming the same tax period. He has taken inter alia number of grounds, such as the orders were unsigned, multiple show cause notices could not have been issued for the same hnancial year. However, the peLitioner has not submitted arry reply to the show cause notices. Separate Orders- in-original have been passed by the same assessing ofhcer - respondent No. 1 assessing different tax liabilities, which is untenable in law. The appeliate authority has dismissed the appeal on ground of delay without appreciating the plea raised by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents - State is a-ilowed two weeks time to obtain instructions and f-rle counter. Let Commissioner of Commercial Ta-xes, i Floor, Commercial Tax Office, Near MJ Market Road, Opposite Gandhi Bhavan, Nampally - 500001, be impleaded as respondent No.4 in the instant writ petition. Let t}re counter-affidavit be filed by duly vetted respondent No.4 explaining as to how multiple show cause notices and multiple Orders-in-original coukl be passed for one financial year by imposing different tax liabilities upon the petitioner. / I 4 Respondent No. 1 - Assistant Commissioner (ST), Paljagutta - I Circle, should appear on the next date of hearing along with records of the assessment proceedings and copies thereof as certified to be true for perusal of the Court. List the matter on O8.O9.2025. In the meanLime, no coercive steps be taken pursuant to the impugned demald raised arising out of three Orders-in-odginal dated

30.o4.2024."

4. In W.P.No.24O77 of 2025 also, similar order was passed on 18.08.2025, rvhich is as under: "l,earned counsel Sri K.P.Amarnath Reddy appe.rrs for thc petitioner. Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State 1'ax, appears for the respondents. ln respect of the tax peiod, 2OL9-2O20, a show cause notice in Form GST DRC-OI was issued under Section 73 of the Telangana Goods and Serr.ices Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act"f , on 29.05.2024, which is Annexure P-2. Another show cause nolice for the same tax period was issued by the same Assessing Oflrcer - respondent No. 1, under the same provision on 31 .O5.2O24, u,hich is Annexure P-3. The proceedings initiated under the show cause notice dated 31.05.2024 ended up in dropping of the demand by order daLed, 29.08.2024 passed by respondent No. l. The same Assessing Officer, however, proceeded to adjudicate in respect of the first show c:ruse notice dated 29.05.2024 issued by him against the same tax period and passed an order-in-original dated 3O.O8.2O24, u,hich is Ar.nexure P-6, imposing total tax liability and penalty of Rs.18,64,922.65. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the second order, preferred a belated appea-l before respondent No.2 on 14.03.2025, rvhich was dismissed on grounds of delay vide order dated 18.07.2025, which is Annexure P- 10. The order-in- original dated \ - f 3O.O8.2O24 arld the appeilate order dated 18.07.2025 a.re under challenge by the aggrieved petitioner, inter alia, on a number oi grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the impugned order imposing a demand could not have been passed after the show cause notice in respect of the same tax period was dropped. ' The aJoresaid sequence ofdates relating to two proceedings for the same tax period by the same Assessing Officer presents tota.l piquant and irreconcilable position. If one of the proceedings were dropped by an order-in-original, though arising out of the second show cause notice of the same period, whether a fresh order-in-original imposing liability arising out of the hrst show cause notice for the same ta-x period could have been passed? If the order-in-original dated 3O.O4.2O24 imposing tax liability could not have been passed, the question of preferring an appeal against that order would not have arisen. The appeal has been dismissed on grounds of delay, which the petitioner has sought to explain on account of two proceedings Ieading to opposite results happening due to non-application of mind of the Assessing Oilicer. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner ard the learned Specia.l Government Pleader for State Tex, we are of the view that respondent No.1 is required to explain such an anomaly. The other issue which may arise is whether is it open for the revisional authority to exercise power under Section 108 ofthe Act. It is, therefore, necessary to implead the Commissioner of State Tax i.e., the revisiona-l authority, in the array of respondents. kt him be added as respondent No.4. The counter affidavit to be hled should be vetted by respondent No.4. The Assessing Officer - respondent No. 1, should appear with the records of the assessment proceedings in respect of the tax period 2O19-2O2O and along with two copies as certified to be true thereof for perusa-l of the Court. 6 The ga.rnishee nolice dated ll.ll.2o24 has been issued before I expiry of the appeal period. Two weeks time is allowed to the learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax to file the counter alhdavit, as praved for. List thls c.1se on Oa.Og.2025 by reflecting the name of the learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax for the respondents in the i:au se list. In the meantime, there shali be stay on the garnishee notice issued irr Form GST DRC-13 dated. 11.71.2024.' 5 tn W.P.No.30267 of 2025, when the matter was taken up oI-I 07.1O.2O25, taking note of the grievance ol the petitioner, the following order was recorded: "Sri Narendra Dave, learned counsel appears for \,1/s. Lakshmi Kumaran & Sridharan, learned counsel for petitioner. Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Plcader for State Tai appears [or respondents. ln the instant Writ Petition, the impugned order-in-original dated 3O.O4.2O24 passed by respondent No. 1, Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Hyderabad, confrrming a demand of Rs.3O,23,5921- for the Financial Year 2018-19 and ordbr-in-appeal dated 23.08.2O25 passed by respondent No.3, Appellate Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Hydcrabad, conhrming the same, have been cha,llenged. Arrear Notice dated 23.09.2025 issued by respondent No. 1 for recovery of ta-x arrcars is also under challenge. 1'he impugned proceedings have been challenged tr*er alia on a number of grounds, the prima-ry one being that the present proceedings are hit by the principles of res judicata as for the same tax period. r:arlier proceedings have been dropped uide order-in- original clated 02.08.2023 without any challenge thereto by the Department in appeal. Apart from tJle above grounds, petitioner has 7 also questioned the order-in-original on the ground of limitation as it has been passed on the last date. The show cause notice dated 31.01.2024 is not in compliance with Section 73(21 ot the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. He has a.lso taken a plea that the Assessing Ofhcer did not grant a.rly personal hearing and the impugned order is c4rptic in nature. Learned counsel for the State Tax seeks time to obtain instructions. I-et this matter along with Writ Petition No.24O77 of 2025 be listed on 15.1O.2O25."

6. When this issue u,as taken up \\,,ith the respondents, learned Advocate General assured this Court that the Department is contemplating to frame a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) where these anomalies like issuance of multiple show cause notices and passing of multiple orders can be rectified as per the provisions of the TGST Act. Today, learned Advocate General has produced the circular bearing No.CCT's Ref.No.LIV(2)l 3312025 dated 14.1O.2025 issued by Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Telangana. The respondent Department has proposed a mechanism under Section 161 of the TGST Act, which is for rectification of errors apparent on the face of record. The SOP is also extracted he reunder: I "Standard Crperating Procedure (SOP): .1 l) The officers concerned can carry out rectification of aly kind including rectifying the multiple orders for the same cause of action/issur.. period arld taxable event as prescribed U/Sec. 16 I of the TGST AcL, 2Ol7 within six (6) months from the date of issue of dccision or order or notice or certificate or any other document. 2) The ofhcers concerned can recti$r the multiple orders for tl e same cause of action/issue, period and taxable event, by .rlso adhering to 2.d proviso of Section 161 ofthe TGST Act, 2017. 3) The ofhccrs concerned have to delete the tax portion in the second or subsequent order for the repeated issues artd retain the component lr.hich is not covercd in the earlier proceedings and arrive at a single comprehensir.e net ta-x liability under SGST, CGST & IGST separately. 4) The officers concerned shall also take note of the fact that in the event of the second or subsequent order containing more tax iiability and gets rectrfied by deletion of tax pertaining to repeated issues, the same sha,ll be brought to the notice of t.l-e revisional authority for initiation of proccedings U/Sec. lO8 of the TGST Acl, 2017, since the first order is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 5) The officers concerned shall also take note of the fact that in the event of the second or subsequent order containing more tax liability and gets rectihed by deletion of tax pertaining to repeated issue, the same shall br-' brought to the notice of the undersigned for initiation of proceedings l-rlSec. lO7(2) of the TGST Act, 2017, since the flrst order is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 6) The officer concerned need not exercise powers U,1Sec. 161 as stated supra, if the second and subsequent orders are distinct in nature, which arc unconnected with the first order. 9 7) The officer concerned may a.lso intimate the taxpayers with regard to the multiplicity of notices/orders for the same cause of action/issue, period and taxable event in order to rectify the same U/Sec. 161 of the TGST Act, 2Ol7 in addition to the information already placed in the public domain."

7. Learned Advocate General submits that the issues which have been raised by the petitioners in these cases are such r.r,hich the proper officer on his own motion or.being brought to his notice by the affected person also can rectify. According to learned Advocate General, these errors would lall under second proviso to Section 161 of the TGST Act wherein the periocl of limitation of six months would not apply. It is submitted that the proper oflicer in these cases would undertake the exercise of rectification in accordance with law. Petitioners would be intimated of such exercise so that they can provide necessary inlormation andlor submission to enable the officer to exercise his jurisdiction for rectification of the errors which may have occurred in passing assessment orders in individual cases. B. Lear-ned counsel for the petitioners agreed to the suggestion that the grievances relating to issuance of multiple show cause notices or orders covering same tax period are amenable to rectification under Section 161 of the TGST Act l0 They also agree that the SOP wouid enable the petitioners or other such atfected tax payers to approach the proper officer for rectification of such errors.

9. In tlre aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of the stan(i of the Department, which appears to be in consonance r.l,ith the power of rectification cor-rferred upon the proper officer unde r Section 161 of the TGST Act, we deem it proper to dispose of the u,rit petitions to enable the concerned proper oflicers to undertake the exercise of rectification of the impugnecl notices/orders, in accordance u,ith law, rvithin a reasonable time with due intimation to the assessees. It is brought t o the notice of the Court that the circular dated

14.1O.20'25 has also been uploaded on the GST Portal/ Commercial Taxes Portal of the Department so that persons :rggrieved with similar grievances can approach the proper otficer for rectification of such errors, omissions, etc., in the notices or orders issued by the concerned proper officer, in accordance with law.

10. The ri,rit petitions are disposed of rvith the aforesaid observations and directions. Needless to say, upon such I I ]l -/ rectification, if any of the petitioners have any grievances which are not amenable to the power of rectification under Section 161 oi the TGST Act, it would be open for them to raise before appropriate forum in an appropriate proceeding. In case the rectification of the order leads to refund, if any, in lavour of any one of these assessees, the proper officer would take appropriate decision in that regard also as periaw. There sha1l be no order as to costs Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. To, \ \ //TRUE COPY// SD/. K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSTSTANT REGTTSTRAR sEcTloN ffir'.=* / 1 . The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department (Commercial Tax), Hyderabad, Telangana, State of Telangana.

2. The Secretary to Government (Revenue), State Tax Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

3. The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (CT- ll) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

4. The Appellate Joint Commissioner (ST), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad. 5. The Appellate Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Hyderabad Rural Division, sth Floor, C.T. Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad - 500 001

6. The Deputy Commissioner (St), Warangal Stu Warangal, Division Warangal H.No. 23-6-16311 , 2nd Floor, Commercial Taxes Office Complex, Behind Vishal lVlart, Hunter Road, Warangal 506002.

7. The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Madhapur STU-1, Gagan Vihar Complex, 6th Floor, Nampally, Hyderabad - 500001 B. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Punjagutta-l Circle, Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad.

9. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Madhapur-lll Circle, Madhapur Division, Hyderabad. 1 0. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Saroornagar, Hyderabad-500001 . 7

11.The Assistarrt Commissioner (ST), Warangal Urban lll Circle H.No. 23-6-16311 3rd Floor, Commercial Taxes Office Complex, Behind Vishal Mart, Hunter Road Warangal 506002

12.The Assistant Commissioner, Madhapur-lV, Gagan Vihar Complex, 7th Floor, Nampally, Hyderabad - 500001 '13.One CC to SRI SRINARAYAN TOSHNIWAL, Advocate [OPUC] 14.One CC to SRI K.P.AMARNATH REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

15.One CC to SRI G.R.S.AKHILESWAR, Advocate [OPUC]

16.One CC to M/s. LAKSHMI KUMARAN & SRIDHARAN, Advocate TOPUCI 17.Two CCs to SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPL. GP FOR STATE TAX, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OU!

18.Two CD Copies BSR LS Ny HIGH COUI1T J DATED: 1511012025 COMMON CIRDER WP.Nos.207'31, 24077, 27 416, 28893 and 30267 of 20125 at. 4 /,.J o 11 NOt/ W

1. ti o DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS, WITHOUT COSTS I \\ \l 1f