Rahul Tyres Vs Union of India & Others (Telangana High Court)
Telangana High Court Permits Taxpayer to File Appeal Against Section 74 GST Order and Allows Delay Condonation Application
Summary: The Telangana High Court dealt with a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original dated 06.12.2023 along with Form GST DRC-07 dated 24.01.2024, passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 for the tax period 2017-18. During the hearing, the petitioner sought liberty to avail the statutory appellate remedy. The Court accordingly permitted the petitioner to file an appeal within two weeks, subject to payment of the statutory pre-deposit and filing of a delay condonation application. The Court also permitted the petitioner to raise all available grounds of law and facts before the appellate authority and directed that the question of delay be considered in accordance with law. The case concerns the availability of the statutory appellate remedy against a GST adjudication order passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner, M/s. Rahul Tyres, challenged the Order-in-Original dated 06.12.2023 together with the summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 24.01.2024. The order imposed tax, interest and penalty upon the petitioner for the tax period 2017-18. During the course of hearing, instead of pressing the writ petition on merits, the petitioner sought liberty to avail the statutory remedy of appeal. The petitioner submitted that some delay might have occurred in approaching the appellate authority and requested that the delay be considered sympathetically. The Court accordingly permitted the petitioner to avail the statutory appellate remedy. The Court specifically directed that the appeal should be filed within two weeks, along with the applicable statutory pre-deposit and an application seeking condonation of delay. The petitioner was also permitted to raise all grounds of law and facts available to it in the memo of appeal. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the dispute and left the question of delay to the appellate authority. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without costs.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
2. The order-in-original dated 06.12.2023 along with summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 24.01.2024 for the tax period 2017-18 passed under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as, “the CGST Act”), imposing tax, interest and penalty on the petitioner, is under challenge in this writ petition.
3. 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.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent Department submits that the petitioner is 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.
5. 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.
6. Therefore, we grant liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned order, 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 on 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.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
