Ramdev Plywood and Hardware Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Telangana High Court)
Telangana High Court Sets Aside Rejection of GST Rectification Application Filed Within Extended Limitation Period
Summary: The Telangana High Court, comprising Acting Chief Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao, in M/s. Ramdev Plywood and Hardware Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Others, W.P. No. 34876 of 2026, decided on 29 October 2026, set aside an order rejecting the taxpayer’s rectification application under Section 161 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The dispute concerned input tax credit for financial year 2018-19. The original assessment order had been passed on 29 April 2024, and the ordinary six-month rectification period was stated to expire on 28 October 2024. The petitioner relied on the notification dated 8 October 2024, which prescribed a six-month special rectification window extending up to 7 April 2025 for covered matters. The petitioner submitted its first application on 11 January 2025 and a reminder on 16 January 2025. However, the department rejected both through its order dated 2 December 2025, treating them as multiple applications under Section 161.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Heard Mr. K.P. Amarnath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax appears for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The instant is the writ petition, which has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 02.12.2025, whereby the applications dated 11.01.2025 and 16.01.2025 filed by the petitioner seeking for rectification of the order passed under Section 161 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, “the Act”) stood rejected.
3. The matter pertains to availing of Input Tax Credit for the period between 2018-19. The order of assessment was passed on 29.04.2024 and according to the provisions of Section 161 of the Act, the application for rectification could have been filed by the petitioner only within a period of six months from the date of the order i.e., till 28.10.2024. However, the petitioner could not avail the said remedy. Subsequently, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs issued notification on 08.10.2024, whereby it had extended the period of limitation for filing an application under Section 161 of the Act for a further period of six months starting from 08.10.2024 i.e., the date of notification. The said extension of six months time for filing application under Section 161 of the Act also covered the relevant assessment year insofar as the petitioner herein is concerned i.e., 2018-19 and the same was now available to the petitioner in terms of notification dated 08.10.2024 till 07.04.2025. Meanwhile, the petitioner has already preferred an application under Section 161 of the Act on 11.01.2025 and a reminder was further made on 16.01.2025 which the respondents considered them to be under Section 161 of the Act and have rejected the same by the impugned order holding that the petitioner has filed multiple applications under Section 161 of the Act.
4. Be that as it may, considering the legislative intent of the notification dated 08.10.2024, whereby six months period has been granted to the aggrieved person to move an application under Section 161 of the Act and the petitioner having availed the same within the extended six months time in terms of the notification dated 08.10.2024, there was no good reason available with the respondents for having rejected the first application dated 11.01.2025 on the ground that multiple applications were filed by the petitioner. Even if there would have been multiple applications, the first application ought to have been taken cognizance of by the department and other could have been rejected on the ground that already an application is pending in this regard.
5. In view of the same, the impugned order dated 02.12.2025 passed by respondent No.1 stands set aside and the respondents are directed to duly consider the application dated 11.01.2025 filed by the petitioner under Section 161 of the Act and pass appropriate orders on merits.
6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
