Telangana High Court
M/S. Chilukuri Enterprises Llp vs The Union Of India on 19 March, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT PETITION No.7019 of 2025
ORDER:
(Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)
Sri M.Umashankar, learned counsel appearing for
Sri P.Bharath Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for
CBIC, for respondent Nos.2 to 5.
2. Heard on admission.
3. This writ petition assails the show cause notice dated
27.02.2025, whereby the petitioner's registration is suspended
and it is directed to file reply by 10.03.2025.
4. Criticizing the impugned show cause notice, learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that this is the second visit of the
petitioner to this Court. Earlier, respondents issued a show cause
notice dated 30.10.2024 which resulted with issuance of the order
of cancellation of registration of the petitioner dated 21.01.2025.
However, when the petitioner assailed the same in the previous
round i.e., W.P.No.2210 of 2025, the respondents decided to drop
the proceedings by order dated 29.01.2025 and thereafter, issued
the impugned show cause notice dated 27.02.2025.
5. The singular and principal contention of learned counsel for
the petitioner is based upon the judgment of the High Court of
Judicature for Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in SBQ Steels
Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, Central excise and
Service Tax, Guntur 1. It is submitted that when the show cause
notice shows that a conclusion has been drawn, it is an idle
ceremony to ask the petitioner to file reply and the show cause
notice itself can be interfered with.
6. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that
the language employed in the show cause notice shows that it is
only tentative in nature and whatever is averred is in the shape of
only 'allegations'. No 'conclusions' have been drawn. The
attention of this Court is drawn to paragraph No.16 of the show
cause notice which reads thus:-
"16. As M/s Chilukuri has contravened the Section 16(2)(c)
as mentioned above, the registration of the M/s Chilukuri
2014 (300) E.L.T.185 (A.P.)
Enterprises LLP., GSTIN: 36AASFC7335E1Z9, appears to be
liable for cancellation under Rule 21(e) of the CGST Rules,
2017. Accordingly, registration is suspended with effective
from 27.02.2025."
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
8. A conjoint reading of paragraph Nos.11 and 16 of the show
cause notice shows that the averments are in the nature of
'allegations' and not 'conclusions'. Thus, the judgment in SBQ
Steels Limited (supra) is of no assistance to the petitioner.
9. This is trite that interference by the writ court at the stage of
show cause notice can be made on limited grounds. The
petitioner has not assailed the show cause notice on the ground of
lack of competence. The Apex Court in Special Director v. Mohd.
Ghulam Ghouse 2 opined that the scope of interference on show
cause notice is limited. It was held as under:
"5... Whether the show-cause notice was founded on any legal
premises, is a jurisdictional issue which can be even be urged
by the recipient of the notice and such issues also can be
adjudicated by the authority issuing the very notice initially,
before the aggrieved could approach the court..."
(2004) 3 SCC 440
10. In view of the aforesaid judgment, we find no reason to
interfere in the instant case. If the petitioner files its reply within
ten days from today, the authorities shall consider the reply and
take a decision in accordance with law.
11. The admission is declined and the writ petition is dismissed
with the aforesaid observations. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ
__________________________
RENUKA YARA, J
19.03.2025
sa/vs
