Disposed

M/s. N Circle Exim LLP v. Joint Commissioner

Telangana HC14 Oct 2025WP/29630/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a review petition against an order granting liberty to file an appeal in tax matters. The Court held that the original reply submitted by the petitioner was unsigned and not admissible, confirming the impugned order did not suffer from any error apparent on the face of record. Further time was granted to file the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Review petition disposed of; further two weeks time granted to file statutory appeal.

M/s. N Circle Exim LLP Vs Joint Commissioner — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³⁴⁸⁸ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE^{SRIAPARESH KUMAR SINGH} AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN

¶6

REVIEW IA NO. 2 OF 2026

¶7

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 29630 OF 2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

M/s. N Circle Exim LLP, rep. by its Partner,^{N. Nikhil, S/o. N.J,,lageswaraRao,} aged about 38^years, iVo. 402, Minar^{Apartments, DeccanTowers,} Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

Joint Commissioner, Customs and^{Central Excise,HyderabadGST} Commissionerate, Hyderabad.

¶14

...2. The Union of lndia, iep. by its Member Secretary, Ministry of Finance, North " Block, Parliament House, New Delhi.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of^{CPC RAIV Rule 24 prayingthat in the} circirmstances stated in the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition, the High} Court may be^pleased to allow the^{review petition and set aside the order in} W.P.No.29630 of 2025, dated^{14.10.2025 as well as the order of the 1"t} respondent dated 01.07.2025 and^{remandthe matter for fresh examination by} the 1tt respondent

¶17

Counselfor the Petitioner: M/S^{BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES}

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent^{No. 1: SRI D. RAGHAVENDRARAO}

¶19

(sR sc FoR cBlc)

¶20

Gounsetfor the Respondent No.2:^{Dy.SOLICITOR GENEALOF INDIA}

¶21

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶22

Mr. Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel representing M/s. Bharadwaj Associafes appears for the review petitioner.

¶23

Mr. D. Raghavendra Rao, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of lndirect laxes and Customs appears for respondent No.l.

¶24

The present review petition by the writ petitioner guesfioas the statement recorded at para 4 of the impugned order on the submrssio n of the learned Senror Standing Counsel for the Revenue. Taking into account the aforesaid s;ubmission and that such uniigned reply was taken note by the Assessrng Officer at para 1O of the order-in-original dated 01.07.2025, the writ petitioner was granted libefi to prefer an appeal with statutory pr* deposit with the obseruation that the appellate authority would entertain its grounds based upolt the material placed on record before fhe Assessing Officer such as ffs reply'though not signed by the authorized signatory or any Director of the Firm a:; fhe said reply and materials were owned by the petitioner. Two weeks timet was granted to the petitioner to prefer an appeal by impugned order dated 14.10.2025. The petitioner has preferred this review petition on 06.01.2026 questioning the impugned direction based upon the statement of the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respotndent department at para 4.

¶25

Leamed Senior Counsel for the review petitioner has referred to repty of the -petition'er at page tB dated 24.06.2025 which carries a signature of the designated partner of the Firm and a stamping of the department dated 01.07.2026 i.e., the date on which the order-in- original was passed. lt is submitted that the submr'ssr'on of the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue th;tt the reply was unsigned was not correct.

¶26

Learned Senror Standing Counsel for the Revenue submits that the document at page 18 datd 24.06.2025 was not filed any time during the course of personal hearing. The proper officer at para 10 of the order-in- original has recorded th,et on 12.03.2025 the tax payer submifred a letter to the undersigned and reques'fed for 45 days time mentioning the reason that their 26A5 statement to be rectified and there were excess repoding of receipts in 26A5. Again on 11.06.2025, the tax payer submitted a reply to the show cause notice

¶27

,,,d

¶28

¶29

for consideration addressing to the undersignd without atlaching^any supporting documentary evidence substantiating their^reply and^{also not} signed by any authorized signatory. The tax^payer was^{afforded the} opportunity to respond. Though a reply was submittd, it was not E- signed/signed by any Director/authorized signatory of lhe Firm on their^official letler head. As such, the reply is not admissible in lerms of Rule 26 of^the Centra! Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.3 submils that the copy^{of the} unsigned reply is available with the/,t. The copy of letter dald^21.06.2025at page 18 of the review petition may have been submitted on the date on which the order-in-original was^passe4 as it bears the seal^{of the departnent dated} 01.07.2025.

¶30

However, the letter which was submitted earlier before the^Joint Commissioner, Hyderabad, CGST Commissionerate,^{was dated 09.05.2025and} was not on the letter head of the^{petitioner. Neither was it signdnor E-signed} l by any Directoi or authorized signatory. Therefore, the^{statementmadebefore} the writ Coud on behalf of the department^{was based} on^{the instructions} obtained from the record and are on the same lrnes^{as recordedby the proper} officer in the older-in-original at^para 10. Therefore,^{petitioner has madea vain} attempt !o seek review of the matter which does^{not suffer from any error} apparent on the face of record. Petitioner^{is only trying} to^{evade the pre} deposit by seeking remand of the mattet to the^{proper ofticer} on^these unlenable grounds.

¶31

We have considered the submissions of the learned^{counselfor the} parties and taken note of lhe ground that the documents relied upon^{by the} petitioner for seeking review of the impugned order.

¶32

A p*usal of the order-in-oiginal shows that^{when the order-in'original} was passed, though a reply was subntitted by the^petitioner, il^{was not on the} tetter head or signed or E-signed by the Director^{or authorized signatory of the} petitioner. The letter dated 24.06.2025 bears a seal of 01.07.2O25 of^the department i.e, the date on which the^{orderinoriginal had beerl passed.As} such, this letter dated 21.06.2025 apparently^{was not submilted any time} before the order-in-original was^passed.

¶33

wTr

¶34

Thqefore, this Court taking note of the stand of the parties^gnnted liberly to the petitioner to prefer an appeal within a period of lwo weeks and directed the appellate authority to en,€rtain the grounds based upon the material placed on record before^(he Assessrng Officer, such as, its reply though nol signed by the authorized signatory or any Director of the Firm as the said reply and material are owned by the petitioner. lnstead of availing it, it has preferred the review petition after considerable lapse of time.

¶35

We do not find any ground of review made out. However, petitioner is granted further two weeks time to file a statutory appeal with pre-deposit. The observations containd in the opentive podion of the impugned order shall be applicable if such appeal is filed within the time stipulated.

¶36

The rcview petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

¶37

ot- B}IAVANI SWAMY
s ANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

ECTION OFFICER

To,

1 . The .loint Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad GST .^{Comnrissionerate, Hyderabad.}

¶42

1. The hlember Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, North Block, Parliament House, Neur Delhi.

¶43

3 One OC to M/S BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES, Advocate [OPU cl

¶44

4 One CC to SRI. D. RAGHAVENDRA RAO (sR sc FoR cBrc) loPUcl 5 One OC to DY.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF I NDIA [OPUCI 6 Two^()D Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED""04l0212026

ORDER

REVIEW IA NO. 2OF 2025 IN

¶51

WP.No.29630 of 2025

¶52

t:.L
,,,r.i;i';;=
(.
e
1 3 AFfl 2rJ26

1t
P,qTCH

¶53

DISPOSING OF THE REVIEW PETITION

¶54

o'E'b
%o

M/s. N Circle Exim LLP v. Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. N Circle Exim LLP v. Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs and Central Tax (Appeals - I)

M/s.Aditya and Co., Vs The Union of India

Harshitha Nandikanti Vs The State of Telangana

Phanitha Constructions Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax

M/S. Sira Jute World Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State Of Telangana

Shahziya Shahbaz Vs The State of Telangana