TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 912
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... India. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The impugned order-in-original dated 02.07.2025 passed under Section 74 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as, "the TGST Act"), relates to the financial year 2021-2022. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has preferred the writ petition, inter alia, taking the ground that the relied upon documents seized during inspection were not supplied by the adjudicating officer before arriving at a decision. The petitioner was denied proper opportunity of hearing. When the petitioner made a request for an adjournment, the request was not heeded to and instead, the order-in-original was passed. 4. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned counse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the findings recorded by the adjudicating officer at page Nos.120 to 125 of the material papers annexed to the writ petition. According to the learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, they demonstrate that the petitioner in the first round of litigation approached this Court on the plea that the orders and show cause notices were unsigned. The matter was remitted to the adjudicating officer. Thereafter, the petitioner once again laid challenge to the impugned proceedings on the ground that the relied upon documents were not supplied. It is submitted that after the order dated 05.03.2025 passed in W.P.Nos.17938, 17941 & 18148 of 2024 and 1005 & 1130 of 2025, the adjudicating officer has supplied the scanned copies of several suc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich were illegible. The petitioner was granted multiple opportunities to visit the office on scheduled dates i.e., 12.06.2025, 16.06.2025, 18.06.2025 and 20.06.2025 at 11.30 am to collect the required documents, but it failed to visit. The adjudicating officer issued three reminders on 02.06.2025, 21.06.2025 and 25.06.2025 to avail the personal hearing and to file reply. Even after receipt of 2434 documents along with DRC-01A and the revised show cause notice in addition to providing the photocopies of all the documents on 29.05.2025, the petitioner did not file any reply to the revised show cause notice and did not respond till date. Then on 02.07.2025, the date of personal hearing, it made a request at 1.12 pm to consider the adjournment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mercial Engineers and Body Building Company Limited). 9. Based on the aforesaid submissions, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax has prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed and the petitioner may be relegated to avail the alternative remedy of appeal. 10. We have given considerable hearing to the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant documents placed from record. 11. The previous history of the litigation has been referred to in the foregoing paragraphs. It appears that after the matter was remitted vide order dated 05.03.2025 passed in W.P.Nos.17938, 17941 & 18148 of 2024 and 1005 & 1130 of 2025, the department has provided scanned copies of several documents which relate to the financial yea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioner to take before the appellate authority as per the provisions of Section 107 of the TGST Act. The petitioner has also alleged that the opportunity of personal hearing was not granted. However, it appears that despite issuance of three personal hearing notices, the petitioner has failed to avail the same and then on the date on which the order-in-original was passed, it has made a belated request to seek adjournment and file reply. 13. We have taken note of the decision of the Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.24954 of 2015, dated 11.08.2015. A perusal of the said order shows that it relates to the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, in which only one opportunity of hearing was granted t....