Telangana HC Directs Taxpayer to File GST Appeal Against Assessment Order

Sapna Satish Agarwal Vs State of Telangana (Telangana High Court)

Telangana High Court Directs Taxpayer to Avail Statutory GST Appeal Remedy Against Assessment Order 

The Telangana High Court declined to entertain a writ petition challenging a GST assessment order passed under Section 73 of the GST Acts, holding that the petitioner had an effective statutory remedy of appeal. The Court granted liberty to approach the appellate authority with a delay condonation application and statutory pre-deposit, leaving all factual and legal grounds open for consideration in appeal.

Introduction

In Sapna Satish Agarwal v. State of Telangana & Another, the petitioner challenged a show cause notice and assessment order issued under the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The principal grievance was that the show cause notice and assessment order were merely uploaded under the “Additional Notices” tab of the GST portal and were never effectively communicated to the petitioner.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner challenged:

• Show Cause Notice dated 30.09.2023
• Order-in-Original dated 30.12.2023

Both were issued under Section 73 of the GST Acts for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018.

The writ petition was filed on 06.04.2026, nearly two years after the assessment order.

The petitioner contended that:

• The show cause notice was not served upon her.
• The assessment proceedings were conducted without her knowledge.
• The impugned order was merely uploaded under the Additional Notices Tab on the GST portal.
• Since the order was not effectively communicated, the challenge could not be treated as belated.

Respondents’ Stand

The State opposed the writ petition on the ground of:

• Substantial delay in approaching the High Court.
• Availability of an effective statutory appellate remedy under the GST Act.

The Revenue relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in:

Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited

to contend that writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be exercised where statutory remedies are available.

Court’s Observations

The High Court observed that:

• The dispute involved issues that could appropriately be examined by the appellate authority.
• The petitioner had a statutory remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act.
• Questions regarding service of notice, communication of orders, delay, and merits of the assessment could be raised before the appellate forum.

The Court therefore declined to adjudicate the merits of the controversy in writ jurisdiction.

Final Decision

The Telangana High Court:

• Declined to interfere with the assessment proceedings in writ jurisdiction.
• Granted liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal under Section 107(1) of the GST Act.
• Permitted the petitioner to file a delay condonation application under Section 107(4) along with the appeal.
• Directed that the statutory pre-deposit requirement be complied with.
• Clarified that all factual and legal grounds would remain open for consideration before the appellate authority.
• Observed that if the appellate authority is satisfied with the reasons for delay, it shall decide the appeal on merits.
• Disposed of the writ petition without costs.

Key Takeaways

1. Uploading Orders on GST Portal May Be Raised Before Appellate Authority

Taxpayers alleging non-service or lack of knowledge of GST orders may raise such grounds before the appellate authority while seeking condonation of delay.

2. Writ Jurisdiction Not Ordinarily Invoked Against GST Assessment Orders

Where a statutory appeal mechanism exists, High Courts generally direct taxpayers to exhaust that remedy first.

3. Delay Condonation Applications Remain Available

Taxpayers can seek condonation of delay by demonstrating that orders were not properly communicated or otherwise came to their notice belatedly.

4. All Merits Remain Open in Appeal

Questions relating to assessment, tax liability, procedural defects, and natural justice can be examined by the appellate authority once the appeal is entertained.

Conclusion

In Sapna Satish Agarwal v. State of Telangana & Another, the Telangana High Court reaffirmed the principle that GST disputes should ordinarily be pursued through the statutory appellate framework. While declining to examine the merits of the assessment order, the Court protected the taxpayer’s right to seek appellate relief by permitting the filing of an appeal along with a delay condonation application and statutory pre-deposit.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT

None appears for the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Government Pleader for State Tax, appearing for the respondents.

3. In the present case, the show cause notice dated 30.09.2023 and the order-in-original dated 30.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act’), are under challenge. The instant writ petition has been filed on 06.04.2026. The petitioner has taken a plea that the show cause notice and the impugned order-in-original were merely uploaded under the additional notices tab of GSTIN Portal and were not communicated to it. The matter relates to tax period from July 2017 to March, 2018. Therefore, the matter is not belated. This Court may entertain the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner was not served with the show cause notice and not aware of the proceedings initiated by the Department. Moreover, the impugned order was merely uploaded on the additional notices tab of GSTIN Portal. As such, it was not in the notice of the petitioner.

4. Learned Government Pleader for State Tax has opposed the prayer at the outset on the ground of huge delay in preferring this writ petition. He has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada, v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited¹ .

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances as noted above, this Court is not inclined to enter into the merits of the issue. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appellate authority with a delay condonation application in terms of Section 107(1) read with Sub-Section (4) of the Act with statutory pre-deposit. It is open for the petitioner to take all such grounds in law and on facts in the appeal. Needless to say, the appellate authority, if is satisfied with the reasons explained in the delay condonation application, he shall proceed to decide the case on merits.

6. The instant Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

Notes:

¹ (2020) 19 SCC 681