Telangana HC Allows Taxpayer to Pursue GST Appeal Against Assessment Order Despite Delay

Diamond Service Center Vs State of Telangana (Telangana High Court)

The Telangana High Court declined to examine the merits of a GST assessment order challenged nearly two years after its issuance but granted liberty to the taxpayer to pursue the statutory appellate remedy. The Court directed that if an appeal is filed within two weeks along with a delay condonation application and statutory pre-deposit, the appellate authority shall consider the question of delay and, if satisfied with the explanation, decide the appeal on merits.

Introduction

In M/s. Diamond Service Center v. State of Telangana & Another, the petitioner challenged an assessment order passed under Section 73 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 relating to the tax period 2017-18.

The principal issue before the Court was whether the writ petition should be entertained when the petitioner claimed that it became aware of the assessment order only in December 2025, despite the order having been passed on 30.12.2023.

Facts of the Case

The dispute arose from:

• Assessment Order dated 30.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the TGST Act and CGST Act.
• The proceedings related to Assessment Year 2017-18.
• The writ petition was filed on 31.12.2025.

The petitioner contended that:

• It became aware of the assessment order only in December 2025.
• The order had merely been uploaded in the “Additional Notices” tab on the GST Portal.
• No effective service of the show cause notice or assessment proceedings had been made.
• Consequently, the delay in approaching the Court was not deliberate.

Petitioner’s Contentions

The petitioner argued that:

• The assessment proceedings were conducted without proper service of notices.
• The impugned order was not brought to its knowledge through any effective mode of communication.
• Uploading the order in the additional notices tab of the GST portal did not provide actual knowledge of the proceedings.
• Therefore, the writ petition deserved consideration despite the lapse of time.

Revenue’s Position

The State Tax Department opposed the writ petition on the ground of substantial delay.

The Revenue relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in:

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

and contended that belated challenges to assessment orders should not ordinarily be entertained in writ jurisdiction when statutory appellate remedies are available.

Court’s Observations

The High Court observed that:

• The petitioner sought permission to avail the statutory appellate remedy.
• The dispute involved questions that could appropriately be examined by the appellate authority.
• The issue of delay and the petitioner’s explanation regarding knowledge of the order could also be considered by the appellate authority.

Considering these circumstances, the Court found it unnecessary to enter into the merits of the assessment proceedings in writ jurisdiction.

Final Decision

The Telangana High Court:

• Declined to examine the merits of the assessment order.
• Granted liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal.
• Directed the petitioner to approach the appellate authority within two weeks.
• Permitted filing of a delay condonation application along with the appeal.
• Directed that the appeal be accompanied by the prescribed statutory pre-deposit.
• Clarified that all factual and legal grounds remain open to the petitioner.
• Observed that if the appellate authority is satisfied with the reasons furnished for delay, it may entertain and decide the appeal on merits.
• Disposed of the writ petition without costs.

Key Takeaways

1. Delay in Challenging GST Orders May Be Addressed Through Statutory Appeals

Even where substantial time has elapsed since the assessment order, taxpayers may seek recourse through appellate mechanisms accompanied by delay condonation applications.

2. Knowledge of Orders Uploaded on GST Portal Remains a Recurring Issue

The case reflects a common dispute where taxpayers contend that orders uploaded on the GST portal were not effectively brought to their notice, leading to delayed challenges.

3. High Courts Continue to Prefer Statutory Remedies

Where an appellate remedy exists under the GST framework, High Courts generally refrain from adjudicating merits and direct taxpayers to pursue the prescribed statutory process.

4. Appellate Authorities Retain Power to Examine Delay Explanations

The judgment reiterates that appellate authorities can consider explanations relating to lack of knowledge, improper service, or other circumstances while deciding applications for condonation of delay.

Conclusion

In M/s. Diamond Service Center v. State of Telangana & Another, the Telangana High Court reiterated the principle that disputes concerning GST assessment orders should ordinarily be pursued through the statutory appellate framework. While declining to adjudicate the merits of the assessment order, the Court safeguarded the taxpayer’s right to appeal by permitting the filing of a delay condonation application and directing the appellate authority to consider the matter in accordance with law.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT

Heard Mr. B.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax appearing for respondents.

2. In the present case, the order dated 30.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act’), is under challenge. The instant writ petition has been filed on 31.12.2025. The petitioner has taken a plea that it came to know of the impugned order which was uploaded on the additional notices tab of GSTIN Portal only in December, 2025. The matter relates to Assessment Year 2017-18. Therefore, the matter is not belated. This Court may entertain the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner was not served with the show cause notice and not aware of the proceedings initiated by the Department. Moreover, the impugned order was merely uploaded on the additional notices tab of GSTIN Portal. As such, it was not in the notice of the petitioner.

3. Learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax appearing for the respondents has opposed the prayer at the outset on the ground of huge delay in preferring this writ petition. He has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited¹.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore seeks liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal with a delay condonation application in terms of Section 107(1) read with Section 107(4) of the Act. He submits that the appellate authority may be directed to consider the question of delay sympathetically in view of the reasons explained in the delay condonation application.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances as noted above, this Court is not inclined to enter into the merits of the issue as the petitioner is being allowed liberty to approach the appellate authority. He may approach the appellate authority within a period of two (2) weeks with a delay condonation application and statutory pre-deposit. It is open for the petitioner to take all such grounds in law and on facts in the appeal. Needless to say, the appellate authority would consider the question of delay and if he is satisfied with the reasons explained in the delay condonation application, he shall decide the case on merits.

6. The instant Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¹ (2020) 19 SCC 681