Kundhana Enterprises Vs Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes) (Telangana High Court)
Summary: The Telangana High Court, in M/s. Kundhana Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes) & Others, granted a taxpayer liberty to pursue the statutory appellate remedy against a GST adjudication order dated 3 September 2025 concerning the tax period April 2022 to March 2023. The petitioner had challenged the Section 74 proceedings on several grounds, including allegedly vague notices, failure to satisfy the statutory ingredients for invoking Section 74, lack of jurisdiction and absence of signatures on the notices and adjudication order. However, after some arguments, the petitioner requested permission to approach the appellate authority instead of seeking an immediate ruling on those objections.
The writ petition challenged the show cause notice dated 18 October 2024, its summary in Form GST DRC-01 bearing reference ZD3610240197641 issued on the same date, and the consequential order dated 3 September 2025. The petitioner sought to have these proceedings declared illegal, arbitrary and unenforceable. Counsel submitted that some delay might have occurred in approaching the appellate authority and requested that the circumstances be considered sympathetically.
The State Tax Department did not oppose the petitioner’s request to avail the statutory appellate remedy. Its counsel submitted that the petitioner could file an appeal and raise all available legal and factual grounds concerning the relevant tax period.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy declined to express any opinion on the merits of the competing contentions. It permitted the petitioner to file an appeal within two weeks of the order, accompanied by the statutory pre-deposit and an application seeking condonation of delay. The appellate authority was directed to consider the explanation for delay in light of the relevant facts and circumstances and, if satisfied, proceed to determine the appeal on merits in accordance with law.
The writ petition was disposed of without costs. The High Court did not quash the Section 74 adjudication order, declare the unsigned documents invalid, independently condone the delay or determine the underlying GST liability. Its relief was confined to providing an opportunity to seek appellate adjudication, leaving the taxpayer’s substantive and procedural objections open before the competent appellate authority.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Mr. K.P.Amarnath, learned counsel appears for the petitioner.
Mr. K.Sai Akarsh, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, appears for the respondents.
2. The writ petition has been preferred with the following prayer:
“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction by setting aside the show cause notice dated 18.10.2024 along with notice in Form GST DRC-01 vide Ref.No.ZD3610240197641 dated 18.10.2024 and impugned order dated 3.9.2025 passed by the 1st Respondent for the tax period April, 2022 to March, 2023 as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, legally unenforceable, issued vaguely without proper satisfaction of ingredients of Section 74 and without any signature on them and same is contrary to the decisions passed by this Hon’ble Court and also contrary the provisions under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
3. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned order. 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.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for State Tax submits that the petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned order 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
