Kabra Tyre Marketing Vs State Tax Officer-I (Telangana High Court)
Telangana High Court Permits Appeal Against Ex-Parte GST Order; Allows Delay Condonation Application
Summary: Telangana High Court permitted M/s. Kabra Tyre Marketing to pursue the statutory appellate remedy against an ex-parte GST order for the tax period 2021-22. The petitioner had challenged the order dated 30.12.2025, FORM GST DRC-07 of the same date and related proceedings, principally contending that the order was uploaded on the GST portal instead of being physically served as contemplated under Section 169 of the GST legislation. It also challenged notices dated 11.06.2025 and orders dated 30.12.2025 for alleged absence of a valid Document Identification Number (DIN), relying on CBIC Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST and the Supreme Court decision in Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India. During the hearing, however, the petitioner sought liberty to pursue a statutory appeal and stated that some delay might have occurred in filing it. The High Court therefore refrained from commenting on the merits of the rival contentions. It granted two weeks to file the appeal with the statutory pre-deposit and a delay condonation application. The petitioner was permitted to raise all available grounds of law and fact, while the appellate authority was directed to consider the question of delay in the facts and circumstances and, if satisfied, decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without costs.
Cases Discussed
- Pradeep Goyal Vs Union of India & Others, W.P. (Civil) No. 320 of 2022 (Supreme Court), decided on 18.07.2022 — Relied upon by the petitioner in challenging the notices and orders for alleged absence of a valid Document Identification Number (DIN). The High Court did not adjudicate this contention on merits because the petitioner sought liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.
FULL TEXT OF THE TELANGANA HIGH COURT ORDER
Mr. Mohammed Rafi, learned counsel appears for the petitioner.
Mr. K. Sai Akarsh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for State Tax, appears for the respondents.
2. This writ petition is filed for the following relief:
“… to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction declaring:
(1) The action of the 1st Respondent in passing the Order, dated 30.12.2025, the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 30.12.2025 and the Proceedings, dated 30.12.2025 passed Best of Judgement Exparte for the tax period 2021-22 under the IGST/CGST/SGST Act 2017 and uploaded the same in the GST Portal instead of serving the same on the Petitioner in physical form as per Section 169 of the Act, is not valid in the eye of law;
(2) The action of the 1st Respondent in issuing the Notices, dated 11.06.2025 and Orders, dated 30.12.2025, without generating a valid Document Identification Number (DIN), for the tax period 2021-22 under the IGST/CGST/SGST Act 2017, is not valid and contrary to CBIC Circular No.128/47/2019-GST, dated 23rd December 2019 and the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s.Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India & Ors. [2022-VIL-42-SC] in W.P.(Civil) No.320 of 2022, dated 18.07.2022; and
(3) Consequently set aside the Best of Judgement Exparte Order, dated 30.12.2025, the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 30.12.2025 and the Proceedings, dated 30.12.2025, passed by the 1st Respondent, for the tax period 2021-22 under the IGST/CGST/SGST Act 2017, as null and void and pass such other Order or Orders, as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstance of the case.”
3. The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that the impugned orders were not served in physical form as contemplated under Section 169 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax/Central Goods and Services Tax/State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
4. However, after some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned orders. He submits that some delay might have been occurred in preferring the appeal and therefore, the same may be directed to be considered sympathetically.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for State Tax submits that the petitioner was at liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned orders taking all the grounds as are available to it in law and on facts.
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. 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 in 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 facts and circumstances of the case 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 is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
