IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD The Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Aparesh Kumar Singh and The Hon’ble Sri Justice G.M.Mohiuddin Writ Petition No.4426 of 2026 Dated: 17.02.2026 Between:

Alokadci Holdings Pvt. Ltd, GSTIN: 36AAQCA6337D1ZL, 84 MIG, Dharma Reddy Colony, Phase II, Vasanth Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, rep. by its Authorised Signatory Mr. Ashok Kumar Reddy, S/o P.Aswartha Reddy ...Petitioner and Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise & Service Tax, Medchal Commsisionerate Medchal GST Bhavan, 11-4-649/B, Lakdi ka Pul, Hyderabad and 3 others ...Respondents

Order

Heard Mr. M.Naga Deepak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) appearing for the respondents.

2. The Order-in-Original dated 28.10.2025, passed by the Joint Commissioner of Central Tax, Medchal GST Commissionerate, imposing upon the petitioner, penalty of Rs.3,49,73,688/- equal to the ITC fraudulently availed, without the actual receipt of goods during the period from May, 2018 to June 2019 under Section 122(1)(vii) read with Section 74 of the of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST/TGST Act) and Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act) and further, penalty of Rs.3,50,19,797/- equal to the ITC fraudulently passed on during the period May, 2018 to June, 2019, by way of issuance of tax invoices without actual supply of goods under Section 122(1)(ii) read with Section 74 of the CGST/TGST Act and Section 20 of the IGST Act, has been assailed in this Writ Petition.

3. The show cause notice was issued upon the petitioner on 02.05.2025 by respondent No.2-Joint Commissioner of Central Tax, Medchal GST Commissionerate, i.e., the same Officer, who passed the impugned Order-in-Original. The show cause notice alleged fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) and passing of ITC on fake invoices without actual supply of goods. As per the show cause notice, the ITC available in the electronic credit ledger of the tax period appeared to be ineligible in terms of Section 16(2)(b) of the CGST Act and issuance of tax invoices without underlying supply of goods/services appeared to be in violation of Section 31 of the CGST Act. It also proposed penalty, for offences listed at Clauses (vii) and (ii) of Section 122(1) of the CGST/TGST Act read with Section 20 of the IGST Act, of an amount equivalent to the ITC passed on. The petitioner did not file reply to the summons. He was granted personal hearings on 15.09.2025, 15.10.2025 and 27.10.2025, but no response was received on all such occasions. No further adjournment was granted, taking note of Section 75(5) of the CGST Act, by the proper officer, while proceeding to confirm the demand and imposing the aforesaid penalty.

4. In the present Writ Petition, the jurisdiction of the proper officer to initiate the proceedings and pass the impugned Order-in- Original have been assailed. Reliance is placed on Circular No.254/11/2025-GST dated 27.10.2025, whereunder it is contended that, for the first time, jurisdiction was conferred upon the officers enumerated in Table-I provided thereunder to pass orders under Sections 74A, 75(2) and 122 of the CGST Act and the Rules made thereunder. It is submitted that earlier Notification No.2/2017-

Central Tax dated 19.06.2017, only conferred jurisdiction over the areas defined to the proper officer in respect of the provisions of the CGST Act and IGST Act in exercise of the powers under Section 3 read with Section 5 of the CGST Act and Section 3 of the IGST Act.

Therefore, the impugned proceedings are without jurisdiction.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the administrative/executive orders or Circulars cannot be applied retrospectively as held by the Apex Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. And others v. M/s. Tata Communications Ltd. Etc, 202