Case Law Details
Saini Semiconductors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax (Telangana High Court)
Telangana High Court Permits GST Appeal Against Section 74 Demand; Declines to Examine Amnesty Scheme Eligibility
Summary: The Telangana High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original dated 17.09.2024 passed under Section 74 of the CGST/TSGST Act, 2017 and related forms, while the petitioner confined its challenge to the Order-in-Original and did not press the challenge to rejection of its application for the Amnesty Scheme. During the hearing, the petitioner sought liberty to file an appeal against the Order-in-Original along with a delay condonation application, acknowledging that there may have been delay in approaching the appellate authority. The respondent submitted that the petitioner was at liberty to file an appeal and raise all available grounds. Without commenting on the merits of the 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 Court directed that the appellate authority consider the issue of delay in light of the facts and circumstances and, if satisfied, decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. The writ petition was disposed of without any order as to costs.
Introduction: In M/s. Saini Semiconductors Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax & Others, the Telangana High Court considered a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original passed under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, along with the rejection of the petitioner’s application under the GST Amnesty Scheme.
During the hearing, the petitioner confined its challenge to the adjudication order and sought permission to pursue the statutory appellate remedy instead of pressing the challenge relating to the Amnesty Scheme. The Court, therefore, refrained from examining the merits of the dispute and permitted the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy under the GST law.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner challenged:
- Order-in-Original dated 09.2024passed under Section 74 of the CGST/TSGST Act.
- Consequential Form GST DRC-07demand orders dated 10.2024.
- Order dated 11.2025rejecting the petitioner’s application under the GST Amnesty Scheme.
The petitioner initially sought a direction that the proceedings initiated under Section 74 be treated as proceedings under Section 73, thereby making it eligible for the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme introduced under Section 128A of the CGST/TSGST Act.
However, during the course of arguments, the petitioner restricted its prayer only to the challenge against the Order-in-Original and chose not to pursue the challenge relating to the rejection of the Amnesty Scheme application.
Petitioner’s Contentions
The petitioner submitted that:
- It intended to challenge the Order-in-Original through the statutory appellate mechanism.
- There had been some delay in approaching the appellate authority.
- Appropriate liberty may be granted to file an appeal along with a delay condonation application.
- The appellate authority should consider the delay sympathetically while deciding the appeal.
Revenue’s Stand
The CBIC submitted that:
- The GST Amnesty Scheme under Section 128Aapplies only to proceedings initiated under Section 73 of the CGST Act.
- The petitioner was free to avail the statutory appellate remedy against the Order-in-Original and raise all factual and legal grounds before the appellate authority.
Court’s Observations
The Division Bench observed that since the petitioner itself sought permission to pursue the statutory appellate remedy, it was unnecessary for the High Court to examine the merits of the controversy.
The Court reiterated that all questions of fact and law could appropriately be raised before the appellate authority under the GST Act.
Accordingly, the Court considered it appropriate to grant liberty to file an appeal rather than adjudicate the issues raised in the writ petition.
Final Decision
The Telangana High Court:
- Granted liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal against the Order-in-Original.
- Directed that the appeal be filed within two weeks along with the prescribed statutory pre-deposit and a delay condonation application.
- Directed the appellate authority to consider the issue of delay in accordance with law.
- Clarified that, if satisfied with the explanation for delay, the appellate authority shall decide the appeal on merits.
- Disposed of the writ petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the dispute.
- Passed no order as to costs.
Key Takeaways
1. Statutory Appeal Preferred Over Writ Remedy
The decision reiterates that disputes relating to adjudication orders under the GST law should ordinarily be pursued through the statutory appellate mechanism.
2. Delay Condonation Remains Available
Even where some delay has occurred in filing an appeal, taxpayers may seek condonation by providing satisfactory reasons before the appellate authority.
3. Section 128A Amnesty Scheme Is Limited to Section 73 Proceedings
The Revenue reiterated that the GST Amnesty Scheme under Section 128A applies only to proceedings initiated under Section 73 and not Section 74. Although the Court did not decide this issue, the case highlights the distinction between the two provisions.
4. High Court Refrains from Examining Merits When Alternative Remedy Exists
Where an effective appellate remedy is available and the taxpayer opts to pursue it, the High Court generally refrains from deciding factual or legal controversies in writ jurisdiction.
Conclusion
In M/s. Saini Semiconductors Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax & Others, the Telangana High Court once again emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory remedies under the GST framework. Instead of adjudicating the merits of the challenge to the Section 74 demand or the taxpayer’s eligibility under the Amnesty Scheme, the Court permitted the petitioner to file a delayed statutory appeal and directed the appellate authority to consider the question of limitation in accordance with law. The ruling reinforces the consistent judicial approach of encouraging taxpayers to pursue the appellate mechanism while preserving their right to raise all available legal and factual grounds before the competent authority.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Heard Mr. V.Sai Amit, learned counsel representing M/s. P.V. Prasad Associates, for the petitioner, Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. K.Mahesh, learned counsel representing Mr. N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing for respondent No.4.
2. The writ petition has been preferred with the following prayer:
“For all the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring that
i. Impugned Order-in-Original bearing Order No. 94/2024-25-Ajn(AC)- GST dated 17.09.2024 along with consequential forms in Form DRC 07 vide Reference Nos. ZD3610240115305, ZD361024011544W and ZD361024011549M, ZD361024011559L dated 10.10.2024, passed by the Respondent No. I under the provisions of Section 74 of the CGST/TSGST Act, 2017 as being void, arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, without authority of law apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India, and directing Respondent No. 1 to treat and/or re-adjudicate the demand contained therein as one falling under Section 73 of the CGST/TSGST Act, 2017, so as to make the Petitioner eligible for the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme under Section 128A of the CGST/TSGST Act, 2017 and to consequently set aside the same and/or pass such further or other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
ii. Impugned order in Form SPL-07 vide Order Ref. No. ZD3611250410131 and ZD361125041059L dated 13-11-2025 passed by the Respondent No.3 under the provisions of CGST/TSGST Act, 2017 as being void, arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, without authority of law apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India, and to consequently set aside the same and/or pass such further or other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to confine his prayer to challenge to the order-in-original dated 17.09.2024 and he submits that petitioner would not be pressing the challenge to the rejection of his application for availing Amnesty Scheme.
4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC submits that the Amnesty Scheme is applicable only in cases covering the proceedings under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
5. However, after some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned order-inoriginal. He submits that some delay might have been occurred in approaching the appellate authority and therefore, it may be directed to consider the delay.
6. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC submits that the petitioner was 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.
7. 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.
8. 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 thequestion 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.
9. 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.
Author Bio
