Magic Wings Vs Superintendent Central Tax (Telangana High Court)
Telangana High Court Allows GST Taxpayer to File Appeal Against Section 73 Order; Delay to Be Considered by Appellate Authority
The Telangana High Court considered a writ petition challenging an order-in-original dated 24.01.2025 passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the tax period April 2020 to March 2021. The petitioner alleged that the order was passed without providing an opportunity of personal hearing but subsequently sought liberty to prefer an appeal, acknowledging that some delay might have occurred in approaching the appellate authority and requesting sympathetic consideration. The CBIC Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner was at liberty to appeal against the order on all available legal and factual grounds. Without commenting on the merits of the parties’ contentions, the High Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal within two weeks, along with the statutory pre-deposit and a delay condonation application. The petitioner was permitted to raise all available grounds of law and fact. The Court directed the appellate authority to consider the question of delay in light of the stated facts and circumstances and, if satisfied regarding the delay, decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Heard Mr. Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), appearing for respondent No.1.
2. The writ petition has been preferred against order-in-original dated 24.01.2025 passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the tax period April, 2020 to March, 2021.
3. The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that the impugned order-in-original has been passed without giving an opportunity of personal hearing. However, after some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned order-in-original. He submits that some delay might have been occurred in approaching the appellate authority and therefore, he may be directed to consider it sympathetically.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for CBIC submits that the petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned order-in-original taking all the grounds as are available 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. Accordingly, 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 disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
