Case Law Details
S P Raj Engineering Works Vs Superintendent of Central Tax (Telangana High Court)
In this case Telangana High Court reiterated that procedural delays should not bar access to justice, especially in GST matters where compliance issues are common.
Case Background
The petitioner challenged:
- Order-in-Original dated 30.08.2024
- DRC-07 issued for FY 2019-20
During hearing, the petitioner sought permission to file an appeal, admitting delay.
Key Legal Issue
Can delayed GST appeals be entertained when taxpayer has been pursuing remedy before Court?
Arguments
- Petitioner: Requested liberty to file appeal with delay condonation
- Department: No objection to statutory remedy
Court Observations
- Court avoided merits
- Noted petitioner was pursuing writ remedy
- Delay deserves consideration on reasonable grounds
Final Judgment
- Appeal permitted within 2 weeks
- To include delay condonation application + pre-deposit
- Appellate authority to decide on merits if delay justified
- Writ disposed
Author’s Analysis
- Courts consistently allow second chance via appeal
- Filing writ does not always bar appeal remedy
- Important to justify delay properly
Conclusion
This ruling strengthens the principle that justice should not be denied due to procedural delays, and appellate forums remain the key avenue for GST dispute resolution.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Sri B. Srinivas, learned counsel appears for Sri M.V.L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for petitioner.
Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) appears for respondent No.1.
2. The instant Writ Petition has been preferred against the Order-InOriginal dated 30.08.2024 passed by the Superintendent of Central Tax, Kapra GST Range, Hyderabad, and also Summary of the order issued in FORM GST DRC-07 dated 31.08.2026 for the tax period from April, 2019, to March, 2020, imposing tax, interest and penalty upon the petitioner.
3. However, after some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned Order-In-Original. He submits that some delay might have been occurred in approaching the appellate authority and therefore, he may be directed to consider it sympathetically.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned Order-In-Original taking all the grounds as are available to it in law and on facts before the appellate authority in respect of the subject tax period.
5. However, upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, since the petitioner seeks liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned Order-In-Original, we do not wish to make any comment on the merits of the contentions raised by the parties.
6. If the petitioner prefers an appeal within a period of two weeks with statutory pre-deposit along with a delay condonation application, the learned appellate authority would consider it in accordance with law by taking into consideration that the petitioner has been pursuing the writ remedy before this Court in the meantime as well. The petitioner will be at liberty to take all the grounds in law and on facts before the appellate authority. If the appellate authority is satisfied that the delay is explained, he would entertain the appeal on merits.
The instant Writ Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Author Bio
