Case Law Details
Metro Traders Vs Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax (Telangana High Court)
Telangana High Court Permits Delayed GST Appeal After Garnishee Notice; Grants Interim Protection from Recovery
The Telangana High Court disposed of the writ petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file a statutory appeal against an assessment order passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act/Telangana GST Act within two weeks, along with a delay condonation application and the prescribed statutory pre-deposit. The petitioner contended that it became aware of the assessment order only after a Form GST DRC-13 garnishee notice dated 26.12.2025 was issued to a third party and that neither the show cause notice nor the assessment order had been served on it. The Revenue opposed the writ petition on the ground of delay and relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. The High Court declined to examine the merits of the assessment order and directed the appellate authority to consider the delay condonation application and, if satisfied with the reasons, decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. The Court also directed that no coercive recovery steps be taken pursuant to the Form GST DRC-13 garnishee notice during the two-week period granted for filing the appeal.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Heard Mr. G.N.G. Shankar, learned counsel represents Mr. M. Ramachandra Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) appears for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. In the present case, the order dated 20.12.2023 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 petitioner has taken a plea that it came to know of the impugned order when Form GST DRC-13, dated 26.12.2025 was issued to third person — M/s. Shri Manikeshwari Sales Corporation. 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 served with the show cause notice and not aware of the proceedings initiated by the Department.
3. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC 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’.
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 it is satisfied with the reasons explained in the delay condonation application, it shall decide the case on merits. 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 26.12.2025.
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.
Note:
1(2020) 19 SCC 681
Author Bio
