Case Law Details
Mahadev Hardware Vs Superintendent of Central Tax (Telangana High Court)
Telangana High Court – Liberty to File Appeal Against GST Order with Delay Condonation
Introduction
GST disputes often involve procedural complexities, especially when taxpayers miss statutory timelines. In this case, the Telangana High Court provided practical relief by allowing the taxpayer to pursue the appellate remedy even after delay, ensuring that technicalities do not defeat substantive justice.
Case Background
The petitioner challenged:
- Order-in-Original dated 03.04.2024
- DRC-07 dated 05.05.2024
- Rectification rejection order dated 25.11.2025
The dispute involved disallowance of ITC under Section 16(4) for FY 2018-19. The petitioner filed a rectification application, but it was rejected due to delay in filing.
Key Legal Issue
Whether a taxpayer can be allowed to file an appeal with delay condonation after rectification is rejected on limitation grounds?
Arguments
- Petitioner: Sought benefit of newly inserted Section 16(5) and requested liberty to file appeal
- Department: Suggested appellate remedy is available
Court Observations
- The Court avoided entering merits
- Recognized that statutory appeal is appropriate remedy
- Emphasized that delay should be considered sympathetically
Final Judgment
- Liberty granted to file appeal within 2 weeks
- To include delay condonation application + pre-deposit
- No coercive action during this period
- Writ disposed
Author’s Analysis
- Even if rectification fails, appeal route remains open
- Courts support substantial justice over procedural delay
- Important for ITC disputes under evolving provisions like Section 16(5)
Conclusion
The ruling ensures that taxpayers are not denied justice merely due to delay and reinforces the importance of appellate remedies in GST disputes.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Heard Mr. Jai Kishan Solanki, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel appears for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC).
2. The instant writ petition has been preferred against the summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 05.05.2024 along with Order-In-Original dated 03.04.2024 passed under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, “the CGST Act”) and the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the tax period 2018-19, imposing the tax and penalty and the rectification order dated 25.11.2025.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed rectification application against the order-in-original dated 03.04.2024 and during the pendency of the said application, the petitioner filed W.P.No.29593 of 2025. This Court while disposing of the said writ petition on 13.11.2025, directed respondent No.1 therein to take a decision on the rectification application in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and in the meantime, the respondents would not proceed for recovery of the outstanding dues pursuant to Form GST DRC-13, dated 30.07.2025 till a decision is taken on the rectification application. Learned counsel further submits that the cut-off date for filing of the rectification application is 07.04.2025, but the same has been filed on 22.04.2025. He further submits that pursuant to the orders of this Court in W.P.No.29593 of 2025, respondent No.1 passed order dated 25.11.2025 rejecting the rectification application on the ground of delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order-in-original was passed by respondent No.1, wherein the input tax credit availed by the petitioner for the period October, 2018 to March, 2019 was disallowed by invoking Section 16(4) of the CGST Act. Subsequently, Section 16(5) of the CGST Act was inserted granting statutory relief in respect of input tax credit for the period involved herein. Therefore, the petitioner seeks the benefit of Section 16(5) of the CGST Act.
4. Learned Senior 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. At this stage, 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.
6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since the petitioner seeks liberty to prefer an appeal, we do not wish to make any comment on the merits of the contentions raised by the parties.
7. 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 take into account the explanation for delay and if is satisfied on the point of delay, proceed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. During the period of two weeks within which the petitioner has to file the appeal, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned garnishee notice.
8. The instant Writ Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Author Bio
