S.Rajender Reddy Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Telangana High Court)
Telangana High Court Grants Three Weeks to Challenge GST Orders Allegedly Not Signed by Competent Authority
Summary: The Telangana High Court, in S. Rajender Reddy Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST), disposed of three writ petitions filed by M/s. S. Rajender Reddy, M/s. Shreya Infra and M/s. Miyapur Jubilee Auto Services challenging the validity of GST orders allegedly not signed by the competent authority. The petitioners contended that the impugned orders were legally unsustainable due to the absence of signatures. The High Court observed that the substantial issue raised in these petitions had already been considered by the Full Bench in Gudla Vanaja and Others Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST), W.P. No. 20397 of 2025 and batch, through its common order dated 30 September 2026. The Full Bench had decided the relevant question against the writ petitioners. Observing that the issues raised in the present batch were squarely covered by the Full Bench decision, the High Court disposed of the petitions in terms of the liberty granted in the earlier common order. However, the Court specifically granted the petitioners three weeks from 27 October 2026 to avail themselves of the statutory remedy of appeal. The Court neither independently examined the merits of the individual GST orders nor set them aside. Accordingly, all three writ petitions were disposed of without any order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications were closed.
Cases Discussed
1. Gudla Vanaja and Others Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Telangana High Court, Full Bench); W.P. No. 20397 of 2025 and batch; 30/09/2026; AY: Not Applicable. Followed: the Full Bench decided the issue concerning authentication of GST orders against the writ petitioners and granted liberty to pursue statutory appellate remedies. The present batch was disposed of on the same terms, with a fresh three-week period.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Learned counsel Sri Mohammed Rafi appears for the petitioner in W.P.No.35790 of 2026. He also represents Sri Md. Shabaz, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.36117 of 2026. Learned counsel Sri P.Venkat Prasad, representing M/s. P.V.Prasad Associates, appears for the petitioner in W.P.No.36092 of 2026.
Sri K.Sai Akarsh, learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader, appears for State Tax.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. These are the matters where the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned orders stand vitiated on the ground that they have not been signed by the competent authority. The substantial issue raised in this batch of writ petitions is also the issue which had earlier been referred to the Full Bench of this High Court in W.P.No.20397 of 2025 and batch. The Full Bench of this High Court vide its common order dated 30.09.2026 has answered the said question and has decided the matter against the writ petitioners and consequently disposed of all the batch of writ petitions. The issue raised in this batch of writ petitions is similar, if not identical to the issue considered and decided by the Full Bench. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the present batch of writ petitions is also squarely covered by the Full Bench decision dated 30.09.2026 in the aforesaid batch.
4. In view of the same, the present batch of writ petitions also stands disposed of in terms of the liberty granted by the Full Bench in its common order dated 30.09.2026 passed in W.P.No.20397 of 2025 and batch, which liberty shall be available to the petitioners herein. However, the petitioners in these writ petitions are granted three weeks time to avail the statutory remedy of appeal and the said period of three weeks shall commence from today. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
