Jain Bearings Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Telangana High Court)
Telangana High Court Allows Appeal Against GST Order Passed Under Section 74 Where Taxpayer Claimed Lack of Knowledge of Proceedings
This is a Judgment concerning a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated 28.06.2025 and Form GST DRC-07 order dated 27.12.2025 passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 and TGST Act, 2017 for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019. The petitioner alleged that it was unaware of the adjudication proceedings because its tax consultant had failed to inform it about the proceedings or order, and that the impugned notice and order were vague and non-speaking. During the hearing, the petitioner sought liberty to pursue the statutory appellate remedy and requested that any delay in approaching the appellate authority be considered sympathetically. The State Tax Department submitted that the petitioner could prefer an appeal and raise all available legal and factual grounds before the appellate authority. The Telangana High Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the parties’ contentions, 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 facts, while the appellate authority was directed to consider the delay and, if satisfied, decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Learned counsel Ms. Akruti Goyal appears for the petitioner.
Sri K.Sai Akarsh, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, appears for respondents No.1 and 2.
2. The writ petition has been preferred against the s how cause notice dated 28.06.2025 and the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 27.12.2025 passed under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the tax period April 2018 – March 2019.
3. The petitioner has approached this court alleging that it was unaware of the impugned order, as the tax consultant who was handling the GST matters of the petitioner failed to inform the petitioner about the adjudication proceedings or the passing of the impugned order. The existence of the impugned order came to the knowledge of the petitioner only after a new tax consultant was engaged who, after verification of the GST portal and records, brought the same to the petitioner’s notice. The petitioner alleges that the impugned show cause notice and the order are vague and non-speaking.
4. However, after some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned order. She submits that some delay might have been occurred in approaching the appellate authority and therefore, the appellate authority may be directed to consider it sympathetically.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for State Tax submits that the petitioner was at liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned order taking all the grounds as are available in law and on facts before the appellate authority in respect of the subject tax period.
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. 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 consider the question of delay taking into account the aforesaid facts and circumstances and if he 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.
