P K Feeds & Manures Vs G. Narender (GSTAT Hyderabad)
Summary: The GST Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, admitted the appeal of P K Feeds & Manures for regular hearing after finding, prima facie, that the reasons advanced for the delay in pursuing the appellate remedy appeared bona fide and warranted consideration. The appellant’s urgent mentioning application, filed on 13 October 2026, initially resulted in a direction to list the matter on 15 October 2026. On that date, the Registry pointed out a defect concerning the respondent’s name in the cause title, and the appellant was directed to rectify it. When the matter was taken up on 16 October 2026, the urgent mentioning application was disposed of, and counsel was also heard on admission of the appeal.
The appellant submitted that its accountant, who handled GST portal work daily, had left employment in June 2024. It claimed that it had neither received physical copies of the impugned order and consequential Form GST DRC-07 nor become aware of their uploading on the portal. It also stated that no show cause notice had come to its knowledge. According to the appellant, it first learnt of the demand through a departmental telephone call on 23 December 2024, consulted its chartered accountant and filed the first appeal on 27 December 2024. That appeal was rejected on 28 February 2026 for delayed filing without consideration of the merits. For the Tribunal appeal filed on 16 September 2026, counsel calculated a delay of 47 days from the extended filing deadline of 31 July 2026. The appellant also relied on its chartered accountant’s ill health, supported by a medical certificate, and submitted that the delay arose from circumstances beyond its control. The departmental representatives opposed maintainability, contending that the delay had not been satisfactorily explained.
After considering the rival submissions, documents and circumstances, the Tribunal admitted the appeal for regular hearing. On the stay request, it recorded counsel’s submission and the Registry’s confirmation regarding the deposit made in terms of Section 112(8) of the CGST Act, 2017. It then referred to the deemed stay of recovery under Section 112(9) and directed the respondents to comply with the statutory provision. Consequently, the stay application was disposed of without a separate stay order. The respondents were directed to file their counter and any cross-objections by the next hearing, and the matter was ordered to be listed after four weeks. The order concerns admission and recovery protection; it does not finally decide the underlying tax dispute or reverse the first appellate order on its merits.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GSTAT
Shri Bhanu Pratap appeared for the Appellant.
Shri Srinivasulu and Shri Narender appeared for the Respondent.
Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the application for urgent mentioning on 13.10.2026 requesting that the appeal be takenup for early hearing on the grounds stated there in. It was submitted that the appeal filed by the Appellant was still at the scrutiny stage, and that early hearing was warranted in view of the circumstances set out in the application.
Having regard to the grounds stated in the application, the matter be directed to be listed on 15.10.2026. On 15.10.2026, the Registry informed the Bench that the name of the Respondent had not been property incorporated in the cause title of the appeal and that a defect in this regard had been pointed out by the Registry. Accordingly, the Appellant was directed to rectify the defect by suitably amending the cause title of the appeal.
Pursuant to the appellant’s application for urgent mentioning, the matter has been listed for hearing today i.e. on 16.10.2026. Since the matter has been taken up for hearing, pursuant to the appellant’s application for urgent mentioning, the said application stands disposed of accordingly.
Ld. Counsel for Appellant was also heard on the admission of the appeal.
He submitted that the accountant engaged by the appellant to attend to its GST related portal works, left the job in June, 2024. It was contended that the said accountant had been handling the GST portal and related work of the appellant’s establishment on a day-to-day basis. After his departure, the appellant neither received any physical copy of the impugned order and consequential form GST DRC-07, not aware of their uploading on the GST portal. The appellant also submitted that no SCN had come to his knowledge. He further submitted that appellant first received telephonic information from the GST Department on 23.12.2024, thereby the appellant was informed of the demand raised through form GST DRC-07 and was asked to deposit the amount demanded. Thereafter, the appellant contacted its CA for advice regarding the legal remedies. The appellant filed first appeal before the Appelate Joint Commissioner, Secunderabad State Tax on 27.12.2024. The appeal was rejected on 28.02.2026 for the delay in submission of the appeal without considering the merits of the case.
The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has specifically stated that the last date for filing of appeals before the Tribunal has been extended to 31.07.2026 vide notification F.No.A-50/7/2025- GSTAT DoR, dated 30.06.2026. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the appellant has filed the appeal before the Tribunal on 16.09.2026 and submitted that there is a delay of 47 days considering the last date for filing the appeal before the Tribunal as 31.07.2026 as per the said notification.
It was further submitted that the delay in pursuant to the appeal was also attributable to the ill health of the appellant’s CA Shri L.N. VVS Kumar, in support of which the medical certificate was placed on record. Principle contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant was that the delay for filing the appeal was bonafide and had occurred for the reasons beyond appellant’s control.
The Ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that application for contention of delay had been filed alongwith the appeal. He also sought the stay of the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 28.02.2026 passed by the Original Appellate Authority, namely Joined Commisisoner of State Tax, Secunderabad be stayed, otherwise, the appellant would suffer irrepairable loss.
Ld. Departmental Representatives appear for the Respondents opposed maintainability of the appeal. They submitted that no satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing appeal had been furnished on record and that the First Appellate authority had, therefore, rightly dismissed the appeal, upon filing the explanation for the appeal be unsatisfactory.
We have heard the submissions advanced by the Ld. counsel for the appellant and the Ld. DRs. We have also carefully considered the documents placed on record and the facts and circumstances of the case.
Upon consideration of the material available on record, we are of the prima facie, view that the appeal deserves to be admitted for regular hearing. The reasons advanced by the appellant for delay in pursuant to appellate remedy appear, at this stage, be bonafide and warrant consideration.
Accordingly, the appeal is admitted for regular hearing.
As regards the prayer for stay of the operation and implementation of the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Circle-I, State Tax, Nacharam, Secunderabad, the same has been considered.
It has been submitted by the Ld. counsel for the appellant, and the registry also confirmed that the appellant has deposited 20% of the stipulated pre-deposit amount in terms of Section 112(8) of the CGST Act, 2017. Although the appeal has been admitted for hearing in view of the provisions contained in provisions in Sec. 112(9) of the CGST Act, 2017, which provide that ” where the appellant has paid the amount as per sub-section (8), the recovered proceedings for the balance amount shall be deemed to be stayed till the dismissal of the appeal”.
The respondents are directed to comply all the aforesaid statutory provision.
In view of the above direction, the appellant’s prayer for stay of the operation and implementation of the impugned order stands disposed of. No separate order, in this regard, is considered necessary.
The respondents are directed to file their counter and cross objections if any, on or before the next date of hearing.
List the case after four (4) weeks.
