Telangana HC Permits Delayed GST Appeal After Bank Attachment

Krishnamani Enterprise LLP Vs Deputy Commissioner (CT) (Telangana High Court)

Telangana High Court Permits Delayed GST Appeal After Bank Attachment; Grants Protection from Coercive Recovery

The Telangana High Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal against the GST assessment order after observing that the petitioner claimed to have become aware of the tax demand only upon issuance of a garnishee notice attaching its bank account. The Court directed that if the appeal is filed within two weeks along with the statutory pre-deposit, the appellate authority shall consider it in accordance with law. The Court also protected the petitioner from coercive recovery during the said period.

Introduction

In W.P. No. 16216 of 2026, the Telangana High Court reiterated its consistent approach of directing taxpayers to avail the statutory appellate remedy instead of invoking writ jurisdiction where an appeal is available under the GST law.

Recognising that the petitioner had approached the Court after learning of the demand through recovery proceedings, the Court granted liberty to file an appeal and protected the petitioner from further coercive action for a limited period.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner challenged the assessment order passed under the GST law after recovery proceedings had already commenced.

The relevant facts were:

• The GST authorities passed an assessment order raising tax, interest and penalty.
• The petitioner contended that it became aware of the liability only after receiving a garnishee notice in Form GST DRC-13 attaching its bank account.
• Since the period for filing an appeal had expired, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking appropriate relief.
• During the hearing, the petitioner sought permission to pursue the statutory appellate remedy along with an application for condonation of delay.

Petitioner’s Contentions

The petitioner submitted that:

• The assessment order was not within its knowledge until recovery proceedings commenced.
• It should therefore be permitted to file a statutory appeal.
• The appellate authority may be directed to consider the delay sympathetically.

Revenue’s Stand

The Revenue submitted that:

• The petitioner had an effective statutory remedy of appeal.
• All legal and factual grounds could be raised before the appellate authority in accordance with the provisions of the GST Act.

Court’s Observations

The High Court observed that:

• Since the petitioner itself intended to pursue the statutory appellate remedy, it was unnecessary for the Court to examine the merits of the assessment order.
• The appellate authority is the appropriate forum to consider both the delay and the merits of the dispute.
• The petitioner should be permitted to file the appeal with the prescribed statutory pre-deposit.

Final Decision

The Telangana High Court:

• Granted liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal within two weeks.
• Directed the petitioner to make the prescribed statutory pre-deposit while filing the appeal.
• Directed the appellate authority to consider the appeal in accordance with law.
• Ordered that no coercive steps shall be taken pursuant to the garnishee notice in Form GST DRC-13 dated 06.02.2026 during the two-week period granted for filing the appeal.
• Disposed of the writ petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

Author’s Analysis

1. High Court Favours Statutory Remedy

Where an appellate remedy exists, the Court ordinarily refrains from adjudicating the dispute under writ jurisdiction.

2. Bank Attachment Does Not Bar Appellate Relief

Even after initiation of recovery through a garnishee notice, taxpayers may still be permitted to pursue the statutory appeal.

3. Interim Protection Against Recovery

The Court protected the petitioner from further coercive action while enabling it to approach the appellate authority.

4. Delay Can Be Considered by Appellate Authority

The judgment reinforces that questions relating to delay should ordinarily be examined by the appellate authority instead of the High Court.

Conclusion

In W.P. No. 16216 of 2026, the Telangana High Court once again emphasized the importance of exhausting the statutory appellate remedy under the GST law. While declining to examine the merits of the assessment, the Court granted the petitioner two weeks to file an appeal with the statutory pre-deposit and protected it from further coercive recovery during that period. The ruling reflects the Court’s balanced approach of safeguarding taxpayers’ appellate rights while respecting the statutory framework under the GST regime.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT

Learned counsel Ms. Akruti Goyal appears for the petitioner.

Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, appears for respondents No.1 to 3.

Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), appears for respondent Nos.5 and 6.

2. In the present case, the order-in-original dated 20.12.2023 along with the proceedings in Form GST DRC-07 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’) and the show cause notice along with Form GST DRC-01 dated 18.08.2023 and the notice in Form GST DRC-13 dated 06.02.2026 are under challenge.

3. The petitioner alleges that the summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 30.12.2023 is an unsigned document and is not valid. The petitioner has also taken a plea that it came know about the existence of the impugned proceedings and the passing of the final order only when the supplier of the petitioner intimated about the notice in Form GST DRC-13 to the petitioner. The matter relates to tax period 2017-18. Therefore, the matter is not belated. This Court may entertain the Writ Petition on the ground that the petitioner was not aware of the impugned proceedings initiated by the Department.

4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CHIC 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 Limited‘.

5. 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.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances as noted above, this Court is not inclined to enter into the merits of the issue and the petitioner is granted liberty to prefer an appeal within a period of two weeks with statutory pre-deposit and a delay condonation application. The petitioner may take all such grounds of law and facts in the memo of appeal as are available to it. Needless to say, the appellate authority would consider the question of delay taking into account the aforesaid facts and circumstances and if he is satisfied on the point of delay, he shall decide the case on merits in accordance with law. During the period of two weeks within which the petitioner has to file an appeal, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned garnishee notice in Form GST DRC-13 dated 06.02.2026.

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

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

Note:

¹(2020) 19 SCC 681