Case Law Details
Maheswari Enterprises Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Telangana High Court)
Summary: The Telangana High Court permitted the assessee to withdraw the writ petition challenging a GST assessment order and file a statutory appeal within two weeks. The Court directed the appellate authority to consider the delay condonation application in accordance with law, taking into account that the petitioner had been pursuing the writ remedy before the High Court, while leaving all legal and factual grounds, including limitation, open for consideration.
The Telangana High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by Maheswari Enterprises challenging an assessment order dated 30.12.2025 for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019 under the GST law.
The petitioner had challenged the assessment order on several grounds, including that it was barred by limitation. During the hearing, the State submitted that the due date for filing the Annual Return for FY 2018-19 had been extended up to 31.12.2020 and, therefore, the assessment order dated 30.12.2025 had been passed within the prescribed five-year limitation period.
After hearing the parties, the petitioner’s counsel sought permission to withdraw the writ petition and avail the statutory appellate remedy. It was also submitted that there might have been some delay in filing the appeal and requested the Court to direct the appellate authority to consider the delay sympathetically.
Accepting the request, the High Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, including the limitation issue. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal within two weeks along with the prescribed statutory pre-deposit and an application for condonation of delay.
The Court directed the appellate authority to consider the delay condonation application in accordance with law, keeping in view that the petitioner had been pursuing the writ proceedings before the High Court. If satisfied with the explanation for the delay, the appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal on merits. All legal and factual grounds were left open for adjudication before the appellate authority.
Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of without any order as to costs.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Heard Mr. Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. In this Writ Petition, the order dated 30.12.2025 passed by respondent No.1 for the tax period April, 2018 to March, 2019, is under challenge on a number of grounds, including being barred by limitation.
3. The matter was adjourned on the previous occasion to enable the learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax to get instructions.
4. Today, on instructions, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax submits that the due date for filing Annual Returns for the financial year 2018-19 has been extended upto 31.12.2020. The impugned order was passed on 30.12.2025, which is within five years. Therefore, the same is within limitation.
5. However, after some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned order. He submits that some delay might have been occurred in approaching the appellate authority and therefore, it may be directed to consider it sympathetically.
6. Learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax submits that the petitioner was at liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned order taking all the grounds as are available in law and on facts before the appellate authority in respect of the subject tax period.
7. However, upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, since the petitioner seeks liberty to prefer an appeal, we do not wish to comment on the merits of the contentions raised by the parties.
8. If the petitioner prefers an appeal within a period of two weeks with statutory pre-deposit along with an application for condonation of delay, the learned appellate authority would consider it in accordance with law also keeping into consideration that it 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 has been properly explained, it shall proceed to decide the case on merits.
9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.
Author Bio
