Pets Pride Vs Assistant Commissioner (State Tax) (Telangana High Court)
In the fast-paced GST regime, missing an appeal deadline can trigger immediate recovery proceedings, leaving taxpayers with limited options. However, the Telangana High Court once again demonstrated that procedural delays should not override substantive justice.
In a recent ruling dated 22.04.2026, the Court granted relief to M/s. Pets Pride, allowing it to file a delayed appeal even after recovery proceedings had commenced.
Case Background
The case titled M/s. Pets Pride vs. Assistant Commissioner arose from a Writ Petition (No. 12394 of 2026), where the petitioner challenged:
- Show Cause Notice (Form GST DRC-01) dated 31.05.2024
- Assessment Order dated 27.08.2024 for AY 2019–20
The petitioner contended that it became aware of the tax demand only on 02.04.2026, when recovery proceedings were initiated. This raised a critical issue—whether the taxpayer had been effectively served or not.
Key Legal Issue
Whether the High Court should exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 when:
- An alternative statutory remedy (appeal) exists, and
- The limitation period for filing such appeal has already expired
Arguments Presented
Petitioner’s Contention:
- The petitioner claimed lack of knowledge of the assessment order.
- Sought permission to file an appeal with a request for condonation of delay.
- Requested the Court to adopt a lenient approach considering the circumstances.
Department’s Stand:
- The State argued that the order was digitally signed and uploaded on the GST portal.
- Implied that proper service had been completed as per GST procedures.
Court’s Observations
