Donthula Sridhar Reddy Vs Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax & Others (Telangana High Court)
Telangana High Court Permits GST Appeal with Delay Condonation and Grants Interim Protection Against Recovery
Summary: The Telangana High Court, in Donthula Sridhar Reddy v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax & Others, permitted a taxpayer to pursue the statutory appellate remedy against a GST adjudication order concerning the transfer of development rights for April 2018 to March 2019. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy declined to determine the underlying GST liability and instead granted the petitioner two weeks to approach the appellate authority with the statutory pre-deposit and an application for condonation of delay. The Court also directed that no coercive recovery steps be taken under the impugned Form GST DRC-13 garnishee notice during that two-week period.
The petitioner had received a show cause notice dated 20 March 2025 and submitted replies on 7 July and 10 July 2025, besides attending a personal hearing on 10 July 2025. The Department subsequently passed Order-in-Original No. 07/2025-26-GST-AC dated 24 July 2025 and issued its summary in Form GST DRC-07 dated 25 July 2025. The petitioner alleged that these orders were not communicated to him. He subsequently became aware of recovery proceedings following a garnishee notice issued to his bank in Form GST DRC-13 dated 27 May 2026.
The petitioner approached the High Court challenging the adjudication order, the consequential demand summary and the recovery notice. Alternatively, he sought permission to invoke Section 107(1) read with Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, by filing an appeal and explaining the delay. The Revenue opposed the writ petition because of the substantial delay and relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT), LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, (2020) 19 SCC 681, dealing with writ jurisdiction and statutory appellate remedies.
The High Court allowed the petitioner to approach the appellate authority within two weeks, subject to filing the delay-condonation application and making the statutory pre-deposit. It expressly left all legal and factual grounds open. The appellate authority was directed to consider the explanation for delay and, if satisfied, decide the appeal on merits.
The Court further protected the petitioner against coercive recovery pursuant to the specified Form GST DRC-13 dated 27 May 2026 during the two-week filing window. The writ petition was disposed of without costs. Importantly, the Court neither declared the disputed development rights transaction non-taxable nor automatically condoned the delay or granted an unconditional stay extending beyond the specified period.
Cases Discussed: Assistant Commissioner (CT), LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited — Supreme Court, (2020) 19 SCC 681. Relied upon by the Revenue in opposing the delayed writ petition. The decision addresses the relationship between statutory appellate remedies, limitation and the discretionary exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Mr. Vutukuri 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. The writ petition has been preferred with the following prayer:
“For all the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon’ble High Court may be pleased 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.07/2025-26-GST-AC dated 24.07.2025, followed by Form GST DRC-07 bearing Ref. No. ZD360725035401L 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 may 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.07/2025-26-GST-AC dated 24.07.2025, followed by Form GST DRC-07 bearing Ref.No.ZD360725035401L dated 25.07.2025, by granting the Petitioner an appropriate opportunity to file the appeal in accordance with law.”
3. Respondent No.1 issued a show cause notice dated 20.03.2025 to the petitioner on the issue of applicability of GST on transfer of development rights. Though the petitioner submitted two replies on 07.07.2025 and 10.07.2025 and attended the personal hearing on 10.07.2025, respondent No.1 allegedly passed the order-in-original dated 24.07.2025 and the Summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 25.07.2025 and the said orders were not communicated to the petitioner. Subsequently, respondent No.1 issued Form GST DRC-13 dated 27.05.2026 to respondent No.3 Bank which in turn intimated the same to the petitioner. The matter relates to the tax period April, 2018-March, 2019. Therefore, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition.
4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC has opposed the prayer at the outset on the ground of huge delay in preferring this writ petition. He has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada, v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited1.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, seeks liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal with a delay condonation application in terms of Section 107(1) read with Section 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. He submits that the appellate authority may be directed to consider the question of delay in view of the reasons explained in the delay condonation application.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances as noted above, this Court is not inclined to enter into the merits of the issue as the petitioner is being allowed liberty to approach the appellate authority. The petitioner may approach the appellate authority within a period of two weeks with a delay condonation application and statutory pre-deposit. It is open for the petitioner to take all such grounds in law and on facts in the appeal. Needless to say, the appellate authority would consider the question of delay and if it is satisfied with the reasons explained in the delay condonation application, it shall decide the case on merits. During the period of two weeks within which the petitioner has to file an appeal, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned garnishee notice in Form GST DRC-13 dated 27.05.2026.
7. The instant Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Note:
1 (2020) 19 SCC 681
