Disposed

Mohan Choudary Seancha v. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Telangana HC2 Jan 2025WP/28511/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition against a common order in a batch of writ petitions challenging GST notifications extending limitation. On consensus, the court modified the order: the unsigned show-cause notice and impugned assessment orders were set aside, liberty given to issue fresh notice, and conditions in WP No.21101 of 2024 applied mutatis mutandis.

What did the court decide?

Order under review modified; unsigned show-cause notice and impugned assessment orders set aside; respondents free to issue fresh show-cause notice in accordance with law.

Mohan Choudary Seancha Vs The Assistant Commissioner… — GST and Indirect Tax | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³⁴³⁰ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENry EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

¶7

l.A. NO: 1OF 2025

¶8

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 28511 OF 2024

¶10

Between:

¶11

Mohan Choudary Seancha, Plot No. 3 North Part, Ragannaguda, Survey No. 338, Turkayamzal, Hayathnagar, Rangareddy, Telangana- 501510, Represented by its Propiietor, ir1r. Mohan Choudary Seancha, S/o. O^S Dhaglaram, Plot No. 3 North Part, Ragannaguda, Turkayamzal, Rangareddy, Telangana- 501 5 10

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

1 The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Vanasthalipuram-ll Circle, Saroor Nagar Division, Exhibition Gate Road, Nampally, Hyderabad-s00 001

¶15

2 State of Telangana, Through Principal Secretary to Govemment^Revenue Department (Commercial Tax), Hyderabad, Telangana

¶16

3 Central Board of lndirect Taxes and Customs, GST Policy Wing, New Delhi rep by its Commissioner

¶17

4 Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, Represented by its Secretary, North Block, New Delhi-110001

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circuglstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court rnay be^pleasedto review the order dated 0210112025 in Writ Petition No²⁸⁵¹ 1 oI 2024^passedby the Honourable Division Bench ll and consequently recall the same^{and hear the} petitioner in respect of all the issues raised in the writ petition.

¶20

This petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the^petitionand Memorandum of^grounds filed in support thereof and upon reading^{the Common} Order dated 02.01.2025 in W.P.NO. 1154 of 2024 & batch^{(WP No.285'11 of} 2024) and upon hearing the arguments of SRI V. VEERESHAM,^{Counsel for the}

¶21

."*Tryg/

¶22

Review Appellant and sRl swARoop ooRlLLA, spl. Gp for state Tax, counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2, M/s. DoMrNrc FERNANDES, counser for the Respondent No.3 & Sri Gadi praveen Kumar, Dy. Soricitor Generar of rndia, for the Respondent No.4. The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

"Sri V.Veeresham, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶24

sri swaroop oorifla, rearned speciar Government preader for state Tax, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶25

During the course of hearing, rearned counser for the parties reached to a consensus. lt is agreed that the order under review is the common order passed in wp.No.1154 ot 2024 and batch, dated 02.01.2025. rn those matters, the principar chafienge was to the notifications, whereby, rimitation was extended. since those notifications were upherd, this court reregated the petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal.

¶26

Another ground in the writ petition was that the show-cause notice and the impugned assessment orders are unsigned documents. The parties agreed that the curtains are finafly drawn on this issue today by this court in wP'No'21101 of 2024 and batch and this review petition may be disposed of in terms of said order and now there is no point in reregating the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal.

¶27

ln view of the consensus arrived at, the order under review stands modified to the extent agreed by the parties and it is ordered that the showcause notice and the impugned orders which are unsigned are set aside.

¶28

Liberty is reserved to the respondents to issue fresh' iho*-caus. notice, in accordance with law and proceed further. Other conditions mentioned in the order passed in WP.No.21101 ot 2024 and batch shall apply mutatis mutandis to this case. The order passed in this writ petition stands modified.

¶29

Accordingty, this Review Application is disposed of. Registry is directed to keep a copy of this order in the original Writ Petition."

¶30

SD/. L. LAKSHMI BABU ASSIS NT REGISTRAR

¶31

//TRUE COPY//

¶32

TION OFFICER

¶33

To, 1. The Registrar Judicial -1, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad 2. The Section Officer (DB Section), High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶34

The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Vanasthalipuram-ll Circle, Saroor Nagar Division, Exhibition Gate Road, Nampally, Hyderabad-S00 001

¶35

The Principal Secretary to Government Revenue Department (Commercial Tax), State of Telangana, Hyderabad, Telangana

¶36

The Commissioner, Central Board of lndirect Taxes and Customs, GST Policy Wing, New Delhi

¶37

The Secretary, Union of lndia, l/inistry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi1 10001

¶38

One CC to SRI V. VEERESHAM, Advocate [OPUC]

¶39

B. One CC to M/s. DOMINIC FERNANDES, Advocate [OPUCI

¶40

Two CCs to SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, Spl. GP for State Tax, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUTJ

¶41

'10.One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, (Deputy Solicitor ceneral of lndia), High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OPUC]

¶42

l l . Two CD Copies

t I

HIGH COURT

DATED:2810212025

ORDER

l.A. No.1 o12025 IN

WP.No.28511 of 2024

rt\ E STAIq
-P
ooJc 10 r{fifl 2025
* +
!rsrra.;c'..\ rO

¶51

DISPOSING OF THE REV. APPLICATION

¶52

\Lt^4ra X#

Mohan Choudary Seancha v. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Choudary Seancha v. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Fishermen Cooperative Society Vs N. Anasuyamma

K. Rajesh Vs The Registrar (Admn)

Mrs. B. Jyothsna Vs State of Telangana

M/s Sugna Metals Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner (St) Stu-I

Krishna Kumar Soni Vs The Assistant Commissioner St

M/s. Omshanthi Trading Company Vs Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax