Case Law Details
Sai Ram Kirana and General Store Vs Superintendent of Central Tax (Telangana High Court)
In the case of Sri Sai Ram Kirana and General Store vs. Superintendent of Central Tax & Ors. (W.P. No. 10537 of 2026, dated 09.04.2026), the Telangana High Court has reiterated a taxpayer-friendly approach by permitting filing of a delayed appeal and granting interim protection from coercive recovery.
Background of the Case
The petitioner challenged an Order-in-Original dated 19.08.2024 and the corresponding Form GST DRC-07 dated 28.08.2024, issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 for the tax period April 2019 to March 2020, involving demand of tax, interest, and penalty.
A crucial aspect of the case was that the petitioner claimed to have become aware of the demand only upon receipt of a garnishee notice in Form GST DRC-13 dated 31.12.2025, which sought attachment of the bank account.
Proceedings Before the High Court
During the hearing, the petitioner chose not to press the matter on merits and instead sought:
- Liberty to file an appeal before the appellate authority
- Consideration of delay sympathetically
The Revenue contended that the statutory remedy of appeal was always available to the petitioner.
Key Observations of the Court
The Hon’ble High Court refrained from examining the merits of the case and focused on ensuring access to statutory remedy.
The Court:
- Granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal within two weeks
- Directed that such appeal be filed along with:
- Statutory pre-deposit
- Application for condonation of delay
- Observed that the appellate authority should consider the delay sympathetically, given the circumstances
Protection from Coercive Action
Importantly, the Court granted interim relief by directing that:
No coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner for a period of two weeks, enabling the petitioner to file the appeal.
This effectively stayed recovery proceedings arising from the garnishee notice during the said period.
Significance of the Judgment
This ruling is significant for taxpayers facing similar situations where:
- Orders are allegedly not served or come to notice at a later stage
- Recovery proceedings are initiated without effective opportunity to appeal
- Delay occurs in filing appeals due to lack of awareness
The judgment reinforces the principle that:
- Right to appeal is a substantive right
- Procedural delays, when reasonably explained, should not defeat access to justice
- Authorities must adopt a pragmatic and equitable approach in condonation matters
Practical Takeaways
- Taxpayers should act promptly upon receiving any recovery notice such as DRC-13
- Even if the appeal period has lapsed, courts may grant relief in deserving cases
- Filing an appeal with proper delay condonation grounds is critical
- Courts may provide temporary protection from recovery to facilitate appellate remedy
Conclusion
The Telangana High Court’s order strikes a balance between procedural discipline and substantive justice. By allowing a delayed appeal and granting interim protection, the Court has once again emphasized that technicalities should not override the right to be heard, especially in tax matters involving significant civil consequences.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Heard Mr. Nishanth Rao KN, 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 Nos.1 and 2.
2. The writ petition has been preferred against the order-in-original dated 19.08.2024 along with summary of order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 28.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the tax period April, 2019 to March, 2020 imposing the tax, penalty and interest.
3. The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that it has come to know about the liability only upon the issuance of the garnishee notice in Form GST DRC-13 on 31.12.2025 for attachment of its bank account (Annexure P-3).
4. However, after some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the 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.
5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC submits that the petitioner was at liberty to prefer an appeal against the order-in-original and DRC-07 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 sympathetically 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. 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 Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
Author Bio
