Pratap Reddy Dontula Vs Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax (Telangana High Court)
Telangana High Court Grants Three Weeks to File GST Appeal and Protects Taxpayer from Coercive Recovery
Summary: The Telangana High Court permitted Pratap Reddy Dontula to pursue the statutory appellate remedy against Order-in-Original No. 06/2025-26-GST-AC dated 24.07.2025 and the consequential Form GST DRC-07 dated 25.07.2025 despite delay in approaching the appellate authority. The petitioner had also challenged a recovery notice in Form GST DRC-13 dated 27.05.2026 issued for attachment of his bank account. During the hearing, however, he sought liberty to file a statutory appeal rather than press the High Court to decide the underlying GST dispute on merits.
The petitioner submitted that he was approximately 91 years of age and became aware of the impugned proceedings only when the bank informed him about the Form GST DRC-13 issued for attachment of his bank account. His counsel submitted that some delay might have occurred in preferring the appeal and requested that the delay be considered sympathetically. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC stated that the petitioner was at liberty to prefer an appeal and raise all grounds available to him in law and on facts.
Since the petitioner ultimately elected to pursue the appellate remedy, the High Court expressly declined to comment upon the merits of the rival contentions. It granted the petitioner three weeks to prefer an appeal along with the statutory pre-deposit and a delay condonation application. The petitioner was permitted to raise all grounds available in law and on facts in the memorandum of appeal.
The High Court directed the appellate authority to consider the question of delay after taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case. If the appellate authority is satisfied on the question of delay, it was directed to proceed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. The order therefore did not itself condone the delay or decide that the delayed appeal must necessarily be admitted; the question of condonation was specifically left for consideration by the statutory appellate authority.
Importantly, the High Court also protected the petitioner against coercive recovery during the three-week period granted for filing the appeal. It directed that no coercive steps be taken pursuant to the impugned garnishee notice during that period. The relief ensured that the petitioner could approach the appellate authority without recovery under the DRC-13 frustrating the opportunity granted by the Court. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Mr. V. Sai Amit, learned counsel appears for the petitioner.
Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), appears for respondent No.1.
2. This writ petition is filed for the following relief:
“…to issue a writ, order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring that
i. The impugned Order-in-Original No.06/2025-26-GST-AC dated 24.07.2025 followed by Form GST DRC-07 bearing Ref. No. ZD360725035380H dated 25.07.2025 passed by the Respondent No.1 under the provisions of CGST/TSGST Act, 2017 as being void in the eyes of law, arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, without authority of law apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India, and to consequently set aside the same and/or pass such further or other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
ii. The recovery notice in Form GST DRC-13 vide C.No. GEXCOM/TAR/D/GST/1745/2025-CGST dated 27.05.2026 issued by the Respondent No.1 to Respondent No.3 as being void, arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, without authority of law apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India, and to consequently set aside the same and/or pass such further or other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
iii. In the alternative, and without prejudice to the above, permit the Petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned Order-in-Original No.06/2025-26-GST-AC dated 24.07.2025, followed by Form GST DRC-07 bearing Ref.No. ZD360725035380H dated 25.07.2025, by granting the Petitioner an appropriate opportunity to file the appeal in accordance with law.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aged about 91 years and he came to know about passing of the impugned orders only when respondent No.3-Bank intimated him that respondent No.1 issued Form GST DRC-13 dated 27.05.2026 for attachment of his bank account.
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 him 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 three 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 him. 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. During the period of three weeks within which the petitioner has to file the appeal, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned garnishee notice.
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.
