Royal Engineers Vs Deputy Commissioner (ST) STU II (Telangana High Court)
Summary: The Telangana High Court disposed of three writ petitions challenging GST orders on the ground that they had not been signed by the competent authority. The petitions, W.P. Nos. 35179, 35345 and 35429 of 2026, raised an issue substantially similar to the question previously referred to the Full Bench in Gudla Vanaja and Others Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST), W.P. No. 20397 of 2025 and connected matters. The petitioners contended that the absence of signatures vitiated the impugned orders. The High Court noted that the Full Bench, by its common order dated 30 September 2026, had already decided the relevant question against the petitioners in the earlier proceedings. Although the Court acknowledged that the issues in the present petitions were similar rather than identical, it considered them squarely covered by the Full Bench decision. Accordingly, it disposed of the petitions on the same terms, extending the liberty granted by the Full Bench to pursue available remedies. Importantly, the Court directed that the two-week period allowed under the earlier decision would commence afresh from the date of the present order. No costs were imposed, and all pending miscellaneous applications were closed. The order therefore applies the binding Full Bench ruling to subsequent GST signature challenges while preserving the specified opportunity to pursue statutory remedies.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Heard Sri M.V.L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.35179 of 2026, Sri Vemuganti Mahesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.35345 of 2026, Ms. P. Lakshmi Charitha, learned counsel representing P.V. Prasad Associates, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.35429 of 2026 and Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State Tax and perused the record.
2. These are the matters where the contention of 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 WP.No.20397 of 2025 and batch. The Full Bench of this Court vide its common order dated 30.09.2026 has answered the said question and has decided the matter against the writ petitioners therein, and consequently disposed of the aforesaid batch of Writ Petitions. The issue raised in this batch of Writ Petitions is similar, though not identical, to the issue considered and decided by the Full Bench of this Court. 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.
3. 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 of this Court in its common order dated 30.09.2026. The period of two weeks granted by the Full Bench shall also be available to the petitioners herein, and the said period of two weeks shall commence from today. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
