Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 16230
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ, G.M. MOHIUDDIN, J
M/s. Sesha Sai Ispat Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner ST – Respondent
WRIT PETITION|No.20330 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. K.Prabhavathi, Ms. K.Uma
For the Respondents: Sri Swaroop Oorilla, Sri M.Karthik, Sri D.Raghavendar Rao
The court recognizes that an unsigned order is non-est in law, affecting enforceability, and allows withdrawal for alternative remedies.
Headnote:1. The writ petition is brought forth under the CGST and SGST Act to challenge an unsigned adjudication order dated 26.6.2024, arguing it is a nullity in law due to lack of signature, violating Rule 142(1A) of CGST Rules, 2017.2. The court frames the primary issue as whether the unsigned order can be enforced and whether the limitation period for appeal begins without a signed document. It finds that the petitioner may withdraw the writ petition with liberty to seek alternative remedies.3. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty, maintaining no costs order.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge of unsigned adjudication order under cgst and sgst acts. (Para 2) |
| 2. petitioner seeks withdrawal with alternative remedy. (Para 3) |
| 3. court dismisses the petition as withdrawn without costs. (Para 5) |
ORDER:
Learned counsel Ms. K.Prabhavathi, representing learned counsel Ms. K.Uma, appears for the petitioner. Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, appears for respondents No.1 and 2.
Learned counsel Sri M.Karthik, representing Sri D.Raghavendar Rao, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, appears for respondent No.4.
2. The writ petition is preferred for the following prayer:
“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction –
a) declaring that the adjudication order dated 26.6.2024 along with Form GST DRC-07 in Ref.No.ZD360624112609B, dated 26.6.2024 purportedly issued by the 1st Respondent for the tax period 2018-19 under Section 73 of the CGST and SGST Act as being a nullity, non-est in law on account of not having any signature and also contrary to Rule 142(1A) of CGST Rules , 2017 for not issuing Form GST DRC-01A; or b) alternatively, declaring that the liability of tax and penalty arising under the unsigned order dated 26.6.2024 purportedly passed under Section 73 of the GST Act by the 1st Respondent cannot be enforced or recovered from the Petitioner on account of such order being unsigned, non- est and also that the limitation to file a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017 would not commence until a signed copy of the order dated 26.6.2024 is served on the Petitioner in accordance with law and pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy available under law.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents report no objection.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
