SV Computers Vs Superintendent of Central Tax (Telangana High Court)
Telangana High Court Permitted Delayed Appeal Against Section 73 GST Assessment and Stayed Recovery for Two Weeks
The Telangana High Court, in SV Computers v. Superintendent of Central Tax, disposed of the writ petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file a statutory appeal against the adjudication order dated 30.12.2025 passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which levied tax, interest and penalty, along with a delay condonation application and the statutory pre-deposit. The petitioner challenged both the adjudication order and the recovery notice dated 03.06.2026, stating that it became aware of the liability only upon receipt of the recovery notice. During the hearing, the petitioner sought permission to pursue the statutory appellate remedy. The respondents submitted that the petitioner was at liberty to prefer an appeal and raise all available legal and factual grounds before the appellate authority. The High Court declined to examine the merits of the dispute, directed the petitioner to file the appeal within two weeks, and observed that the appellate authority should consider the question of delay in light of the facts and, if satisfied, decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. The Court further directed that no coercive steps be taken pursuant to the recovery notice during the two-week period allowed for filing the appeal.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Learned counsel Sri M.V.I.K.Kumar appears for the petitioner.
Sri Dominic Fernandes. learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), appears for respondents No.1 and 2.
2. The writ petition has been preferred challenging the action of respondent No.1 in issuing the recovery notice dated 03.06.2026 and also the adjudication order passed by respondent No.2 dated 30.12.2025 lvying tax. interest and penalty under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services lax Act. 2017.
3. The petitioner has approached this Court alleging. that it has come to know about the liability only upon the issuance of the recovery notice dated 03.06.2026.
4. However after some arguments. learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the order-in-original. 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 crder-in-original taking all the grounds as are a \ ailahle 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 paties.
7. We grant libert \ 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. During the period of two weeks within which the petitioner has to file the appeal, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned recovery notice.
8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
