2025(04)LCX0661
Water Tech Engineers
Versus
Assisstant Commissioner of CGST
WRIT PETITION NO: 21072 OF 2024 decided on 22-04-2025
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF
TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF
APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF
JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT PETITION NO:21072 OF 2024
Between:
WATER TECH ENGINEERS, Rep. by its
Authorised Person Sri Kotturi
Srinivas S/o Kotturi Shankar Manager -Admin, 1st Floor, Saluja
Arcade,l80,Tarbund Secunderabad, 500009 Telangana
...PETITIONER
AND
1 Assisstant Commissioner
of CGST, Malkajigiri Division. H.No.8-2-77/3 & 4,
Aditya Towers, Sri Sai Enclave, Old Bowenpaaly Secunderabad-500011
2 The Commissioner of Central
Goods and Service Tax, Medchal
Commissionerate CF36 + 454, Redhills, Hyderabad, Telangana 500004
3. The Chief Commissioner of
Goods, and Service Tax And Customs,
Hyderabad Zone, Central Tax, Hyderabad Zone, GST Bhavan, L.B Stadium
Road Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-50004
4. The Union of lndia, Rep. by
its Secretary(Finance) CBIC Ministry of Finance,
North Block New Delhi -110001
5. The State of Telangana, Rep by
Principal Secretary to Revenue, Commercial
Tax Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 oI the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances, stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in pursuance of the lmpugned Order in Original No.24/2024 GST dated 29-03-2024 with Demand of Tax Rs. 51,04,778 u/s 74(9)of CGST Act 2017 R/w Section 122(2)(b) of CGST Act 2017 (ii) interest u/s 50(3) of CGST Act R/w Section 20 of the IGST Act (iii) equal amount of tax as Penalty of Rs.51,04,778 u/s 122(2)(b) of CGST Act 2017, along with the unsigned GST DRC-07 dated 26-04-2024 uploaded in contravention of Section 3 of lnformation Technology Act 2000 (21 of 2000) as mandated by rule 26(3) of CGST Rules, read with Rule 142 (5) of CGST Rules, and 1st Respondent failure to issue the same simultaneously with OlO, without signing the documents digitally, as void ab initio, and the same is without Jurisdiction or Authority, contrary to the principles of natural justice, contrary to the Provisions of CGST Act and the Rules made there under, illegal, arbitrary, capricious, contrary the Apex Court Judgements and contrary to Articles 14,19, read with 300A, of the Constitution of lndia., and to pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.
The Prayer is Amended as per Court Order datedl3-08-2024 vider lA.No.2 of 2024.
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
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 in pursuance the impugned Orcier Demand of lmpugned Order in Original with Demand of Tax Rs.51 ,04,778 u/s 74(9)of CGST Act 2017 R/w Section 122(2)(b) ot CGST Act2017 (ii) interest u/s 50(3) of CGST Act Rl/w section 20 of the IGST Act (iii) equal amount of tax ari penalty of Rs.51,04,778 u/s 122(2\(b) of CGST Act 2017, pending disposal of this Writ Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T.SRINIVASA MURTHY
Counsel for the Respondent
No.1 to 3: SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES,
Sr. SC FOR CB|C
Counsel for the Respondent
No.4: SRI cAD! PRAVEEN KUMAR,
DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERIAL OF INDIA
Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SPL GP FOR STATE TAX
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF
JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT PETITION No.21072 of 2024
ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)
Sri T.Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. With the consent, finally heard.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that the points involved in this writ petition are squarely covered by a recent common order passed in W.P.No.21101 of 2024 & batch, dated 28.02.2025. Since DRC-07 is unsigned document and not pregnant with any physical/digital signatures, in view of the said common order, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC placed reliance on paragraph No.21 of the counter and the brief note annexed with the counter to submit that justifiable reasons are given pursuant to which DRC-07 was unsigned. In the light of these documents, paragraph No.21 and ‘brief note’, the matter is distinguishable.
5. The parties have confined their arguments to the extent indicated above and no other point is pressed.
6. In W.P.No.21101 of 2024 & batch, dated 28.02.2025, this Court opined as under:-
“41. This is trite that if a law prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, the same must be done in the same manner and other methods are forbidden (see Baru Ram v. Prasanni and Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala). Since Rule and prescribed Forms mandate requirement of signature of Proper Officer, its violation makes the notice/order vulnerable. Any contrary view taken by Court about DRC-07 having no signature without considering the above rule and prescribed Form must be held as per incuriam.”
7. A plain reading of the aforesaid paragraph makes it clear that this Court opined that when statute prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in the same manner and the other methods are forbidden. After considering various judgments of Supreme Court, the other High Courts and the order of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, this Court came to hold that if DRC-01 and DRC-07 are also not signed for whatever reason, the impugned orders are vitiated. The reasons assigned in paragraph No.21 of the counter and the brief note cannot prevail over the statutory requirement.
8. Resultantly, we are inclined to follow our view in W.P.No.21101 of 2024 & batch, dated 28.02.2025.
9. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders are set aside. Liberty as given in W.P.No.21101 of 2024 & batch dated 28.02.2025 to the revenue shall be applicable in the same manner in the present case as well.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ
__________________________
RENUKA YARA, J
22.04.2025
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
1 Assisstant Commissioner
of CGST, Malkajigiri Division. H.No.8-2-77/3 & 4,
Aditya Towers, Sri Sai Enclave, Old Bowenpaaly Secunderabad-500011
2 The Commissioner of Central
Goods and Service Tax, Medchal
Commissionerate CF36 + 454, Redhills, Hyderabad, Telangana 500004
3. The Chief Commissioner of
Goods, and Service Tax And Customs,
Hyderabad Zone, Central Tax, Hyderabad Zone, GST Bhavan, L.B Stadium
Road Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-50004
4. The Union of lndia, Rep. by
its Secretary(Finance) CBIC Ministry of Finance,
North Block New Delhi -110001
5. The State of Telangana, Rep by
Principal Secretary to Revenue, Commercial
Tax Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad
6. One CC to SRI T.SRINIVASA MURTHY, Advocate [OPUC]
7. One CC to SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES, Sr. SC FOR CBIC [OPUC]
8.One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad [OPUC]
9. Two CCs to SPL GP FOR STATE TAX, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]
10. Two CD Copies.
HIGH COURT
DATED:22/04/2025
ORDER
WP.No.21072 of 2024
DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,
WITHOUT COSTS