Venkateshwara Motors India Private Limited Vs Superintendent of Central Tax (Telangana High Court)
Summary: The Telangana High Court granted Sri Venkateshwara Motors India Private Limited liberty to file a statutory appeal against a common adjudication order passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court permitted the appeal to be filed within two weeks, along with the statutory pre-deposit and an application for condonation of delay.
Background
The petitioner challenged a common adjudication order dated 01.10.2025, passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 and the TGST Act, 2017, along with consequential summaries in FORM GST DRC-07. The order covered the financial years 2017–18 to 2022–23.
The writ petition alleged, among other things, that the impugned order was without jurisdiction, arbitrary and contrary to the CGST/TGST Acts, and violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India. These were the petitioner’s pleaded grounds; the Court did not decide them.
Request to File a Statutory Appeal
After arguing for some time, the petitioner’s counsel sought liberty to prefer an appeal against the order-in-original. Counsel submitted that some delay might have occurred in approaching the appellate authority and requested that the delay be considered sympathetically.
The Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC submitted that the petitioner could file an appeal against the order-in-original and DRC-07 summaries, raising all grounds available in law and on facts.
High Court’s Directions
The Court refrained from commenting on the merits of the parties’ contentions and granted the petitioner liberty to:
- File an appeal within two weeks.
- Make the statutory pre-deposit.
- File an application for condonation of delay.
- Raise all available grounds of law and fact in the appeal memorandum.
The appellate authority was directed to consider the question of delay in light of the facts and circumstances. If satisfied with the explanation for delay, it must proceed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law.
The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. No order was passed as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were closed.
Significance of the Order
The order gives the petitioner an opportunity to pursue the statutory appellate remedy against the common adjudication order covering six financial years. However, the High Court did not set aside the order, determine the validity of the Section 74 proceedings, or condone the delay itself. The appellate authority must consider the delay and, if satisfied, decide the appeal on merits.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Mr. P. Venkat Prasad, learned counsel representing M/s. P V Prasad Associates, appearing for the petitioner.
Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The writ petition has been preferred with the following prayer:
“to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring that the Common Adjudicating Order dated 01.10.2025 passed by Respondent No.1 under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 and the TGST Act, 2017 together with the consequential summaries in Form GST DRC-07 bearing Reference Nos.ZD3610250010462 (FY 2017-18), ZD361025001057Z (FY 2018-19) ZD3610250010636 (FY 2019-20) ZD3610250010660 (FY 2020-21) ZD361025001069U (FY 2021-22) and ZD3610250010719 (FY 2022-23), as being without jurisdiction, arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the provisions of the CGST/TGST Act, 2017, violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing for some time, seeks liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned 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.
4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC submits that the petitioner was at liberty to prefer an appeal against the order-in-original and summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 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 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. 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.
