Ameena Solar Technologies Vs Superintendent of Central Tax & Others (Telangana High Court)
Summary: Telangana High Court granted M/s. Ameena Solar Technologies liberty to prefer a statutory appeal against an Order-in-Original dated 30.12.2025 levying tax and penalty under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 for the tax period 2021-22. The petitioner had approached the High Court on several grounds, including that the respondent had allegedly erred in understanding the basic conditions prescribed under Rule 36(1)(d) of the CGST Rules, 2017. After some arguments, however, the petitioner sought liberty to pursue the statutory appellate remedy and requested sympathetic consideration of any delay. The Revenue submitted that the petitioner could prefer an appeal and raise all grounds available in law and on facts. Since the petitioner itself sought liberty to appeal, the Division Bench refrained from commenting upon the merits. The Court granted two weeks to prefer the appeal with the statutory pre-deposit and a delay condonation application and permitted all available legal and factual grounds to be raised. The appellate authority was directed to consider the question of delay and, if satisfied, decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Learned counsel Sri K.P.Amarnath Reddy appears for the petitioner.
Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), appears for respondent No.1.
2. The writ petition has been preferred against the order-in-original dated 30.12.2025 passed by respondent No.1 levying tax and penalty under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the tax period 2021-22.
3. The petitioner has approached this Court alleging several grounds including the ground that respondent No.1 grossly erred in understanding the basic conditions as laid down under Rule 36(1)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.
4. However, after some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner 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, he may be directed to consider it sympathetically.
5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC submits that the petitioner was at liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned order-in-original taking all the grounds as are available 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. 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.
