Win Creatives India (P) Limited Vs Union of India (Telangana High Court)
Telangana High Court Allows GST Appeal Despite Delay Caused by Chartered Accountant’s Illness
Summaryz; The Telangana High Court disposed of the writ petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an appeal against the order-in-original dated 17.12.2024 passed under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the tax period April 2018 to January 2020, imposing tax, penalty and interest. The petitioner submitted that it could not file a written reply to the show cause notices due to the ill-health of its Chartered Accountant and became aware of the liability only upon service of the order-in-original. The petitioner sought permission to file an appeal despite the delay. The Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits, permitted the petitioner to file an appeal within two weeks along with the statutory pre-deposit and a delay condonation application, and to raise all available grounds of law and fact. The Court further directed that the appellate authority shall consider the question of delay in light of the facts and circumstances and, if satisfied on the issue of delay, proceed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. No order as to costs was passed.
Introduction
In M/s. Win Creatives India (P) Limited v. Union of India & Others, the Telangana High Court considered a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original passed under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Instead of adjudicating the merits of the dispute, the Court followed its consistent approach of directing the taxpayer to avail the statutory appellate remedy while ensuring that the appellate authority considers the delay sympathetically in light of the circumstances explained by the petitioner.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner challenged an Order-in-Original dated 17.12.2024 passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 relating to the tax period April 2018 to January 2020, whereby tax, interest and penalty were imposed.
The petitioner submitted before the High Court that:
- Its Chartered Accountant suffered from serious ill-health.
- Consequently, no written reply could be filed to the show cause notices.
- The adjudicating authority treated the non-appearance as intentional and proceeded to pass the impugned order.
- The petitioner became aware of the liability only after the Order-in-Original was served upon it.
Petitioner’s Challenge
The petitioner initially questioned the validity of the adjudication proceedings.
However, during the hearing, it confined its prayer and sought liberty to file a statutory appeal against the Order-in-Original. It also requested that the appellate authority be directed to consider the delay sympathetically while deciding the appeal.
Revenue’s Stand
The Revenue submitted that:
- The petitioner had an effective statutory remedy by way of appeal.
- All factual and legal grounds could appropriately be raised before the appellate authority.
Court’s Observations
The Division Bench observed that since the petitioner intended to pursue the statutory appellate remedy, there was no necessity to examine the merits of the dispute in writ jurisdiction.
The Court therefore considered it appropriate to permit the petitioner to approach the appellate authority while leaving all factual and legal issues open for consideration in the appeal.
Final Decision
The Telangana High Court:
- Granted liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal within two weeks.
- Directed the petitioner to file the appeal along with the statutory pre-deposit and a delay condonation application.
- Clarified that the petitioner would be entitled to raise all legal and factual grounds before the appellate authority.
- Directed the appellate authority to consider the question of delay and, if satisfied with the explanation, decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law.
- Disposed of the writ petition without any order as to costs.
Key Takeaways
1. Ill-Health of Tax Consultant May Constitute Sufficient Cause
The judgment indicates that circumstances such as the illness of a Chartered Accountant may be considered by the appellate authority while examining an application for condonation of delay.
2. High Court Continues to Encourage Statutory Appeals
The decision reiterates the consistent approach that taxpayers should ordinarily exhaust the appellate remedy available under the GST Act before invoking writ jurisdiction.
3. Delay Condonation Applications Must Be Properly Considered
The appellate authority has been directed to independently evaluate the explanation for delay before deciding whether the appeal deserves to be heard on merits.
4. All Grounds Remain Open Before the Appellate Authority
By refraining from expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court ensured that the petitioner remains free to raise every factual and legal contention before the appellate forum.
Conclusion
In M/s. Win Creatives India (P) Limited v. Union of India & Others, the Telangana High Court once again adopted a pragmatic approach by directing the taxpayer to pursue the statutory appellate remedy instead of entertaining the writ petition on merits. Recognising the explanation offered regarding the ill-health of the petitioner’s Chartered Accountant, the Court directed the appellate authority to consider the delay condonation application and, if satisfied, decide the appeal on its merits. The ruling reinforces the judiciary’s consistent preference for statutory remedies while safeguarding taxpayers against genuine procedural hardships.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Heard Mr. S.V. Bharadwaja, learned counsel representing Mr. B. Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Raghavendra Rao, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5 in virtual mode.
2. This Writ Petition has been preferred against the order-inoriginal dated 17.12.2024 passed under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the tax period April, 2018 to January, 2020, imposing the tax, penalty and interest.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to ill-health of the Chartered Accountant of the petitioner, it could not file written reply to the show cause notices, as such, respondent No.5 treating nonappearance as intentional, passed the impugned order. The petitioner has come to know about the liability only when the impugned order-inoriginal has been served on it.
4. However, after some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned order-in-original dated 17.12.2024. He submits that some delay might have been occurred in approaching the appellate authority and therefore, it may be directed to consider it sympathetically.
5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC submits that the petitioner was at liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned orderin-original taking all the grounds as are available in law and on facts before the appellate authority in respect of the subject tax period.
6. 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.
7. We grant liberty to the petitioner 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 it is satisfied on the point of delay, proceed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law.
8. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
