Anukar Medicals Private Limited Vs State Tax Officer (Revisions) (Telangana High Court)
Summary: The Telangana High Court considered a writ petition challenging the order in FORM GST DRC-07 dated 23.12.2025, passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the tax period April 2021 to March 2022. The impugned order imposed tax, interest and penalty upon the petitioner, M/s. Anukar Medicals Private Limited.
During the hearing, the petitioner sought liberty to prefer a statutory appeal against the impugned GST order instead of having the writ petition adjudicated on merits. The petitioner submitted that some delay might have occurred in approaching the appellate authority and requested that the delay be considered sympathetically.
The respondents submitted that the petitioner was at liberty to prefer a statutory appeal against the impugned order and could take all grounds available in law and on facts before the appellate authority in respect of the subject tax period.
The High Court, after hearing the parties, noted that the petitioner itself sought liberty to avail the statutory appellate remedy. Since the petitioner sought to pursue the appeal, the Court expressly declined to comment upon the merits of the contentions raised by either party.
The Court accordingly granted the petitioner liberty to prefer an appeal within a period of two weeks. The appeal was required to be filed along with the applicable statutory pre-deposit and a delay condonation application. The statutory first appellate remedy under Section 107 is discussed in TaxGuru’s coverage of GST appeals.
The petitioner was also permitted to take all available grounds of law and facts in the memo of appeal. The High Court did not restrict the substantive grounds that could be urged before the appellate authority.
The Court further directed the appellate authority to consider the question of delay taking into account the facts and circumstances. If the appellate authority was satisfied on the point of delay, it was directed to proceed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. Thus, the High Court did not itself condone any delay; the question of condonation was left for consideration by the appellate authority. The principles governing delay in GST appeals and the statutory extension available under Section 107(4) have also been discussed in Condonation of delay in GST Appeals and Limitation Act, 1963.
The case therefore concerns a procedural opportunity to pursue the statutory appellate remedy rather than a determination of the legality or sustainability of the underlying Section 73 demand. The High Court did not adjudicate whether the tax, interest or penalty imposed by the DRC-07 order was legally justified.
The impugned DRC-07 order was passed under Section 73 for the tax period April 2021 to March 2022. Form GST DRC-07 constitutes the summary of the order and is used in the GST demand process. The TaxGuru discussion on Demand and Recovery Forms (DRC) in GST explains the role of DRC-07 in recording the demand.
The Court’s direction is significant because the petitioner was permitted to approach the appellate authority even though it indicated that some delay might have occurred. However, the order should not be understood as an automatic condonation of delay. The appellate authority remains required to examine the delay condonation application in accordance with law and determine whether the explanation furnished by the petitioner justifies condonation.
The High Court also expressly permitted the petitioner to raise all grounds of law and facts before the appellate authority. Consequently, the substantive challenge to the Section 73 demand remains open and was not decided in the writ proceedings.
The judgment demonstrates the practical importance of availing the statutory appellate remedy where a taxpayer chooses not to pursue adjudication of the assessment dispute in writ jurisdiction. In such circumstances, the High Court may grant liberty to file the statutory appeal while leaving questions of limitation and merits to the competent appellate authority.
The Telangana High Court ultimately disposed of the writ petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the dispute. The petitioner was required to file the appeal within two weeks with the statutory pre-deposit and delay condonation application. If the appellate authority was satisfied regarding the delay, it was directed to proceed to decide the appeal on merits. There was no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were directed to stand closed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Mr. P. Venkat Prasad, learned counsel represents P V Prasad Associates, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax appears for the respondents.
2. The order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 23.12.2025 passed by respondent No.1 for the tax period April 2021 to March 2022 under Section 73 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 respondents 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. 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 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.
