Sri Laxmi Fastners Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Telangana High Court)
Summary: The Telangana High Court, in M/s. Sri Laxmi Fastners Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Others, considered a writ petition challenging an adjudication order dated 15.12.2025 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act for financial year 2021–22. The petitioner alleged violation of the principles of natural justice on the ground that notices and orders had not been properly served. It submitted that a newly engaged tax consultant failed to communicate the issuance of the show cause notice, preventing the petitioner from filing a reply or attending the personal hearing. According to the petitioner, it became aware of the adjudication order only after receiving a telephone call from the GST Department.
Although the petitioner initially sought setting aside of the adjudication order, its counsel subsequently confined the request to permission to pursue the statutory appellate remedy. The petitioner acknowledged that some delay might have occurred in approaching the appellate authority and requested sympathetic consideration. The State Tax Department submitted that the petitioner was free to file an appeal and raise all available grounds of law and fact concerning the disputed tax period.
The Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda declined to express any opinion on the merits of the dispute. Instead, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal within two weeks, accompanied by the statutory pre-deposit and an application for condonation of delay. It also permitted the petitioner to raise all legally available grounds in the appeal memorandum.
The Court directed the appellate authority to examine the question of delay in light of the facts and circumstances placed before it. If satisfied regarding the delay, the authority was to proceed to decide the appeal on its merits in accordance with law. The High Court did not itself condone the delay, set aside the Section 73 order or adjudicate the petitioner’s allegations concerning service of notices. The writ petition was disposed of without costs. The decision illustrates a case-specific opportunity to pursue the statutory appellate remedy, subject to consideration of delay and compliance with the applicable legal requirements.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Heard Sri G.N.G. Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The Writ Petition has been preferred with the following prayer:
“… to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in passing the impugned Order dated 15.12.2025 passed for the year 2021-22 under Section 73 of the GST Act as violative of the principles of natural justice, being without proper service of notices and orders, and also unsustainable on merits and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice.”
3. The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that the newly engaged tax consultant failed to inform him about the issuance of show-cause notice and as such, he could neither file a reply nor attend for personal hearing, resulting in passing of the impugned order and that he has come to know about passing of the impugned order only when he received a call from the GST Department.
4. However, 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.
5. Learned Special 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.
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. 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 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 accordingly stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
