Telangana HC Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging GST Assessment Due to Unexplained Delay

Dilip Super Market Vs Superintendent of Central Tax (Telangana High Court)

Telangana High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging GST Assessment Due to Unexplained Delay; Reiterates Importance of Statutory Appeal Remedy  

The Telangana High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a GST assessment order and consequential recovery proceedings on the ground of unexplained delay in approaching the Court. The Court reiterated that where a statutory appellate remedy is available, taxpayers must act within the prescribed limitation period and cannot bypass the appellate mechanism without sufficient justification.

Introduction

In Anil Kumar Agarwal v. Deputy Commissioner (ST) & Others, the petitioner challenged an assessment order passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 along with the corresponding Form GST DRC-07 and subsequent bank attachment proceedings.

The petitioner contended that the DRC-07 summary order was invalid as it was allegedly unsigned and therefore contrary to Rule 142 of the CGST Rules, 2017. However, the Telangana High Court declined to entertain the writ petition due to the petitioner’s failure to explain the substantial delay in challenging the assessment order.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner challenged:

• Order-in-Original No. 05/2024-25-GST dated 22.04.2024 passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017.
• Form GST DRC-07 dated 26.04.2024 issued pursuant to the assessment order.
• Bank attachment proceedings dated 21.03.2025 initiated under Section 79 of the CGST Act.

The writ petition was filed on 28.03.2025, nearly eleven months after the assessment order was passed.

Petitioner’s Contentions

The petitioner argued that:

• The Form GST DRC-07 dated 26.04.2024 was not signed.
• The summary order therefore lacked legal validity.
• The assessment proceedings and consequential recovery action were contrary to Rule 142 of the CGST Rules, 2017.
• The bank attachment proceedings initiated under Section 79 were liable to be set aside.

Court’s Observations

The High Court specifically questioned the petitioner regarding the delay in challenging the assessment order.

The Court noted that:

• The Order-in-Original was passed on 22.04.2024.
• The writ petition was filed only on 28.03.2025.
• The petitioner failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for not challenging the order earlier.
• A statutory appellate remedy was available against the assessment order within the prescribed limitation period.

The Court relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in:

Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd.

where the Supreme Court emphasized that taxpayers cannot ordinarily bypass the statutory appellate framework and invoke writ jurisdiction after allowing the limitation period for appeal to expire.

The High Court observed that entertaining such belated challenges would defeat the legislative scheme governing GST appeals and limitation periods.

Final Decision

The Telangana High Court:

• Declined to admit the writ petition.
• Held that the petition suffered from unexplained and substantial delay.
• Observed that the petitioner had failed to avail the statutory appellate remedy within the prescribed period.
• Dismissed the writ petition.
• Closed all pending miscellaneous applications.
• Passed no order as to costs.

Key Takeaways

1. Delay Can Defeat a Writ Challenge

Even where procedural defects are alleged in GST proceedings, courts may refuse to entertain writ petitions if there is substantial and unexplained delay in approaching the Court.

2. Statutory Appeal Must Be Pursued Promptly

Taxpayers should ordinarily avail the appellate remedy provided under the GST law within the prescribed limitation period rather than approaching the High Court after the appeal period has expired.

3. Writ Jurisdiction Is Not a Substitute for Appeal

The High Court reaffirmed that Article 226 jurisdiction cannot generally be used to circumvent the statutory appellate framework.

4. Supreme Court’s Glaxo Smith Kline Principle Continues to Apply

The decision reinforces the principle laid down by the Supreme Court that courts should be slow to entertain belated writ petitions when adequate alternate remedies were available.

Conclusion

In Anil Kumar Agarwal v. Deputy Commissioner (ST) & Others, the Telangana High Court refused to interfere with a GST assessment order and related recovery proceedings because the taxpayer approached the Court after considerable delay without providing a convincing explanation. The ruling serves as an important reminder that taxpayers must diligently pursue statutory appeals within the prescribed timelines, as writ courts are unlikely to grant relief where appellate remedies have been allowed to lapse.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT

Sri Praveen K Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned. Standing Counsel for CBIC, for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. Heard on admission.

3. This writ petition assails the Order-in-Original dated 22.04.2024.

4. The present writ petition is filed on 28.03.2025.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Form GST DRC-07 dated 26.04.2024 is an unsigned document.

6. On a specific query from the Bench regarding the delay in assailing the order dated 22.04.2024, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention only to paragraph No.7 of the writ affidavit. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not explained the delay in assailing the order dated 22.04.2024 after considerable long time. The petitioner had a remedy of appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 22.04.2024 within a period of ninety days. The Apex Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited’ in paragraph Nc.19 opined as under:-

“19. We may now revert to the Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Electronics Corpn. of India Ltd. [Electronics Corm. of fndia Ltd. v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 21 : (2018) 361 ELT 221 , which had adopted the view taken by the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Panoli Intermediate (India) (P) Ltd. v. tinier, of India [Panoli Intermediate (India) (P) Ltd. v Union. of India, 2)15 SCC OnLine Guj 570: AIR 2015 Guj 97] and also of the Karnataka High Court in Phoenix Plasts Co. v. CCE [Phoenix Plasts Ca v CCE, 2013 SCC OnLine Kar 10432 : (2013) 298 ELT 4811 . The logic applied in these decisions proceeds on fallacious premise. For, these decisions are premised on the logic that provision such as Section 31 of the 2005 Act, cannot curtail the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 22⁷ of the Constitut on. This approach is faulty. It is not a matter of taking away the jurisdiction of the High Court. In a given case, the assessee may approach the High Court before the statutory period of appeal expires to challenge the assessment order by way of writ petition on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction or passed in excess of jurisdiction — by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction including in flagrant disregard of law and rules of procedure or in violation of principles of natural justice, where no procedure is specified. The High Court may accede to such a challenge and can also non-suit the petitioner on the ground that alternative efficacious remedy is available and that be invoked by the writ petitioner. However, if the writ petitioner chooses to approach the High Court after expiry of the maximum limitation period of 60 days prescribed under Section 31 of the 2005 Act, the High Court cannot disregard the statutory period for redressal of the grievance and entertain the writ petition of such a party as a matter of course. Doing so would be in the teeth of the principle underlying the dictum of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in ONGC [OMIC v. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corpn. Ltd., (2017) 5 SCC 42 : (2017) 3 SCC (Civ) 471 In other words, the fact that the High. Court has wide powers, does not mean that it would issue a writ which may be inconsistent with the legislative intent regarding the dispensation explicitly escribed under Section 31 of the 2005 Act. That would render the legislative scheme and intention behind the stated provision otiose.”

(Emphasis supplied)

7. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, the petitioner could have filed the writ petition within the statutory period of limitation for filing the petition. The petition is filed with sufficient amount of delay and without there being any explanation for delay. For this reason alone, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter.

8. The admission is declined and the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¹ (2020) 19 SCC 681