Sri Krishna Enterprises Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Telangana High Court)
Telangana High Court Allows Appeal Against GST Section 73 Order Where Tax Consultant Failed to Inform Taxpayer
Summary: The Telangana High Court permitted a GST taxpayer to pursue a statutory appeal against an order passed under Section 73 of the GST Act after the petitioner stated that its erstwhile tax consultant had failed to inform it about the proceedings and the impugned order. The Court granted two weeks to file the appeal along with the statutory pre-deposit and an application for condonation of delay.
Background of the Case
M/s. Sri Krishna Enterprises, represented by its proprietor Mr. Ashok Kumar Heda, approached the Telangana High Court challenging proceedings relating to FY 2021–22.
The petitioner challenged the Show Cause Notice along with FORM GST DRC-01 dated 24.09.2025 and the Order-in-Original along with FORM GST DRC-07 bearing Reference No. ZD361225086232I dated 23.12.2025, issued under Section 73 of the GST Act.
The petitioner’s writ petition alleged, inter alia, violation of the principles of natural justice and challenged the proceedings as unsustainable on merits.
Petitioner’s Explanation for the Delay
The petitioner submitted that its erstwhile tax consultant had failed to inform it about the impugned order.
According to the petitioner, it came to know about the order only after engaging a new tax consultant. After the matter was argued for some time, the petitioner sought liberty to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.
The petitioner also requested that, if there was any delay in approaching the appellate authority, the delay be considered sympathetically.
Department’s Stand
The Special Government Pleader for State Tax submitted that the petitioner was at liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned order and to raise all grounds available in law and on facts before the appellate authority.
High Court’s Order
The High Court specifically refrained from commenting on the merits of the contentions raised by the parties since the petitioner had sought liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.
The Court accordingly granted the petitioner liberty to:
1. Prefer an appeal within two weeks;
2. Make the statutory pre-deposit;
3. File a delay condonation application; and
4. Raise all available grounds of law and fact in the memorandum of appeal.
The appellate authority was directed to consider the question of delay taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case. If satisfied regarding the delay, the authority was to proceed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law.
Important Clarification
The High Court did not itself condone the delay and did not set aside the Section 73 order or DRC-07.
The question of whether the delay should be condoned has been left to the appellate authority. Only if the appellate authority is satisfied on the issue of delay is it required to proceed with the appeal on merits.
Significance of the Order
The order provides an avenue for a taxpayer who claims that it did not receive information regarding GST proceedings from its erstwhile tax consultant to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.
At the same time, the order preserves the statutory appellate process: the taxpayer must file the appeal within the period granted by the Court, make the applicable pre-deposit and seek condonation of delay. The ultimate decision on the delay and the merits remains with the appellate authority.
Conclusion
The Telangana High Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the GST dispute, granted M/s. Sri Krishna Enterprises two weeks to file an appeal against the Section 73 order.
The case highlights the procedural relief that may be available where a taxpayer approaches the High Court after becoming aware of an adverse GST order and seeks to pursue the statutory appellate remedy with an explanation for the delay.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Heard Ms. Akruti Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for State Tax and Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC).
2. The Writ Petition has been preferred with the following prayer:
“…to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction set aside the Order in Original along with proceedings in Form GST DRC-07 vide Ref. No.ZD361225086232I dated 23.12.2025 and Show Cause Notice along with Form DRC-01 dated 24.09.2025 issued by the 1st Respondent under Section 73 of the Act for the tax period 2021-22 as being nullity on the ground that the impugned notices and orders are issued in violation of principles of natural justice and also unsustainable on merits and pass such other order orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
3. The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that its erstwhile tax consultant failed to inform about the impugned order and it has come to know about the same only when a new tax consultant was engaged.
4. However, after some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned order. She submits that some delay might have occurred in approaching the appellate authority and therefore, the appellate authority may be directed to consider the appeal sympathetically.
5. Learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax submits that the petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned order taking all the grounds as are available to it 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. Therefore, 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 accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
