Sri Gajanand Enterprises Vs Superintendent of Central Tax & Others (Telangana High Court)
Telangana High Court Permits Taxpayer to Prefer Appeal Against GST Demand With Delay Condonation Application
Summary: The Telangana High Court permitted M/s. Sri Gajanand Enterprises to pursue the statutory appellate remedy against an Order-in-Original and consequential order raising a demand under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 for tax period 2021-22. The petitioner had approached the High Court alleging that its reply to the show-cause notice and supporting documents were not considered by the adjudicating authority. During the hearing, however, the petitioner sought liberty to file an appeal and submitted that some delay might have occurred in approaching the appellate authority. The High Court expressly refrained from commenting on the merits. It granted the petitioner two weeks to prefer the appeal with the statutory pre-deposit and an application for condonation of delay, while permitting all available grounds of law and fact to be raised. The appellate authority was directed to consider the question of delay in light of the facts and circumstances and, if satisfied on delay, proceed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. Thus, the High Court did not itself condone the delay or adjudicate the GST demand; both issues were left to the statutory appellate process.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Mr. Kohir Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel appears for the petitioner.
Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel appears 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, declaring the action of the 1st respondent in passing the impugned Order-in-Original No.26/2025-26-Adjn-Supdt-GST-Bansilalpet dated 29.12.2025 along with Order dated 31.12.2025 and Summary of Order in Form GST DRC-07 vide Ref No. ZD361225120138P dated 31.12.2025 under section 73 of CGST/SGST Act, 2017 for the tax period 2021-22, without considering the petitioner’s reply and documents, as being illegal, arbitrary, self- contradictory, non-speaking, and in violation of Petitioner’s rights guaranteed
2 under Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India; and consequently, set aside the same, and/or pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
3. The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that despite filing its reply to the show-cause notice along with relevant documents, respondent No.1, without dealing with the said documents and the contentions raised therein, passed the impugned orders.
4. However, after some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned orders. He submits that some delay might have been occurred in approaching the appellate authority and therefore, the appellate authority may be directed to consider the appeal sympathetically.
5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC submits that the petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned orders 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 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 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.
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.
