Mr Steels vs Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax Vi
2025 Latest Caselaw 6539 Tel

Telangana High Court

Mr Steels vs Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax Vi on 18 November, 2025

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
                            AND
         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN


     WRIT PETITION Nos.34743 and 34748 of 2025

COMMON ORDER:

Learned counsel Sri Priyojeet Chatterjee, representing

learned counsel Sri Mohd. Mukhairuddin, appears for the

petitioner through video conferencing.

Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government

Pleader for State Tax, appears for the respondents.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. Both the writ petitions relate to the same petitioner

and the issues are also common.

4. The petitioner has assailed the show cause notice

dated 11.09.2025 for the tax period April 2023 to March

2024 as violative of Articles 265 and 14 of the Constitution

of India and the provisions of the Telangana Goods and

Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act")

and the rules made thereunder in W.P.No.34743 of 2025.

In W.P.No.34748 of 2025, the petitioner has assailed the

show cause notice of the same date for the tax period April

2021 to March 2022 on the same grounds.

5. In these writ petitions, the impugned show cause

notices were preceded by a search on the premises of the

petitioner during which certain documents/data were

seized for the relevant financial years. The petitioner

contends that the seizure was without any panchanama,

except loosely recording the documents in a piece of paper

which were not even signed. Reference is made to Rule

139 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017,

which prescribes the procedure for undertaking the search

and seizure in Form GST INS-02. The petitioner submitted

documents pertaining to the said financial years in the

nature of audited balance sheets, bank statements, sales

registers, purchase registers, stock statements etc.

Without an opportunity of personal hearing and without

scrutinising all the returns filed by the petitioner under

Section 61 of the Act, the impugned show cause notices

were issued proposing to levy a tax demand of

Rs.83,73,766/- in W.P.No.34743 of 2025 and

Rs.73,18,005.25 in W.P.No.34748 of 2025. The petitioner

has assailed the impugned show cause notices as being

patently illegal and beyond the provisions of the Act.

Further grounds have been raised relying upon the

provisions of Sections 7 and 16 of the Act in order to

submit that the proposed demand is in teeth of Article 265

of the Constitution of India.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the

decision of the Gauhati High Court in M/s. Pepsico India

Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 1 and submitted that

without proper scrutiny of the returns under Section 61 of

the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with

Rule 99 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules,

2017, the show cause notice under Section 73 of the Act

based on discrepancies noticed in the returns filed could

not have been issued.

2025 (9) TMI 1593

7. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for

the respondents has opposed the prayer and submits that

the impugned show cause notices based on search and

seizure concerning the petitioner's company were also the

subject matter of W.P.No.34190 of 2025. It is submitted

that the said writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn

with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the assessment

proceedings by furnishing its reply taking all grounds of

facts and law as are available to it vide order dated

12.11.2025. The impugned show cause notices are

assailed on the same grounds herein. It is submitted that

the jurisdiction to issue show cause notice under Section

73 of the Act cannot be questioned on those grounds. He

has relied upon the decision in Special Director v. Mohd.

Ghulam Ghouse 2, wherein the Apex Court in paragraph 5

therein has held that unless the High Court is satisfied

that the show cause notice was totally non est in the eye of

the law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to

even investigate into facts, writ petitions should not be

entertained for the mere asking as a matter of routine, and

(2004) 3 SCC 440

the writ petitioner should invariably be directed to respond

to the show cause notice and take all stands highlighted in

the writ petition. Whether the show cause notice was

founded on any legal premises, is a jurisdictional issue

which can 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. It is submitted that a Coordinate

Bench of this Court has, following the aforesaid decision,

refused to interfere in the show cause notice in

W.P.No.16266 of 2023 vide judgment dated 28.10.2024.

Since similar issues are involved in the present cases as

that of the same petitioner in the other writ petition in

W.P.No.34190 of 2025, this Court may refuse to interfere

in the matter. The petitioner may be given liberty to pursue

the assessment proceedings by taking all available grounds

of law and facts.

8. On consideration of the rival submissions of the

parties and the limited gamut of facts relevant for

appreciation of the challenge raised herein and also the

decisions cited by the learned counsel for the parties, we

are of the view that the impugned show cause notices have

been issued by the proper officer pursuant to the search

and seizure proceedings carried out during investigation.

The grounds of non-compliance of Section 61 of the Act or

lack of enough opportunity to submit the documents upon

search and seizure can all be taken before the adjudicating

officer by the petitioner. Therefore, on the previous

occasion, this Court had permitted the petitioner to

withdraw the writ petition and to pursue the assessment

proceedings by taking all grounds of facts and law as are

available to it. In the circumstances, no different view

should be taken.

9. Accordingly the writ petitions are dismissed. The

petitioner is at liberty to take all such available grounds of

law and facts before the adjudicating officer in reply to the

impugned show cause notices. There shall be no order as

to costs.