SSL Industries Limited Vs Superintendent of Central Tax & Others (Telangana High Court)
Summary: Telangana High Court permitted M/s. SSL Industries Limited to avail the statutory appellate remedy against GST proceedings relating to the tax period 2021-22. The petitioner had challenged FORM GST DRC-01 dated 30.09.2025, the Order-in-Original dated 26.12.2025 and FORM GST DRC-07 dated 26.12.2025, alleging, inter alia, absence of physical signature, invalid digital signature and non-generation of Document Identification Number (DIN). It also claimed that it became aware of the impugned orders only upon receiving a demand notice dated 01.06.2026. After some arguments, however, the petitioner sought liberty to prefer an appeal. The Revenue stated that all grounds available in law and on facts could be raised before the appellate authority. Without commenting on the merits of the DIN, signature or other objections, the Division Bench granted the petitioner two weeks to file an appeal with the statutory pre-deposit and a delay condonation application. The appellate authority was directed to consider the question of delay in light of the facts and circumstances and, if satisfied, decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Heard Mr. Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Dominic Fenandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3.
2. This writ petition is filed for the following relief:
“… to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction declaring:
(1) the action of the 1st Respondent in issuing the Summary of Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 30.09.2025 and the Summary of the Order in form GST DRC-07 dated 26.12.2025 under the IGST/CGST/SGST Act 2017, for the tax period 2021-22, without any physical signature and invalid digital signature, is nonest in the eye of law;
(2) the action of the 1st Respondent in issuing the Summary of Show Cause Notice in Form DRC-01 dated 30.09.2025 and passing the Order, dated 26.12.2025, the Summary of the Orders in Form GST DRC-07, dated 26.12.2025 and the Order-in-Original, dated 26.12.2025, without generating Document Identification Number (DIN), for the tax period 2021-22 under the IGST/CGST/SGST Act 2017, is not valid; and consequently set aside the Order, dated 26.12.2025, the Summary of the Orders in Form GST DRC-07, dated 26.12.2025 and the Order-in-Original, dated 26.12.2025 passed by the 1st Respondent, levying tax and penalty, for the tax period 2021-22 under the IGST/CGST/SGST Act 2017, as null and void and pass such other Order or Orders, as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstance of the case.”
3. The petitioner has filed the Writ Petition alleging that it came to know about passing of the impugned orders only when it received demand notice dated 01.06.2026.
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 preferring the appeal and therefore, the same may be directed to be considered sympathetically.
5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC submits that the petitioner was at liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned orders, taking all the grounds as are available to it in law and on facts.
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. Accordingly, 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 in 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 facts and circumstances of the case 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 petitions, pending if any, stand closed.
