Case Law Details
Shuchi Smita Goel Vs Additional Commissioner of Central Tax (Telangana High Court)
The Telangana High Court once again addressed the practical difficulties faced by taxpayers due to the non-functioning of the GST Appellate Tribunal. In this case, the Court protected the petitioner from coercive recovery proceedings, subject to payment of 10% of the disputed tax liability, and permitted the petitioner to approach the Tribunal after its constitution.
Introduction
One of the major challenges under the GST regime has been the delayed constitution of the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT). As a result, taxpayers whose appeals could not be effectively pursued before the Tribunal have frequently approached High Courts seeking interim protection against recovery proceedings.
In the present case, the Telangana High Court followed its earlier ruling in W.P. No.3600 of 2024 and granted conditional protection to the taxpayer until the GST Appellate Tribunal becomes operational.
Case Background
The petitioner, Ms. Shuchi Smita Goel, approached the Telangana High Court challenging the order passed by the GST authorities and seeking condonation of delay of 133 days in filing the appeal.
The petitioner alleged that the impugned order was:
- Arbitrary,
- Violative of principles of natural justice, and
- Contrary to Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India.
During the hearing, both parties agreed that the matter could be disposed of in terms of the earlier Telangana High Court decision in W.P. No.3600 of 2024 dated 22.02.2024.
Key Legal Issue
The primary issue before the Court was:
What interim relief should be granted to a taxpayer when the GST Appellate Tribunal is not yet functional?
The Court also examined whether coercive recovery proceedings should continue during the intervening period.
Arguments Presented
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner sought:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal;
2. Protection against coercive recovery proceedings;
3. Liberty to pursue statutory appellate remedy once the GST Appellate Tribunal becomes operational.
The petitioner also contended that the impugned order violated principles of natural justice.
Respondent’s Arguments
During the course of hearing, both parties arrived at a consensus that the writ petition could be disposed of by applying the directions already issued by the Telangana High Court in W.P. No.3600 of 2024.
Court Observations
The Telangana High Court observed that since the GST Appellate Tribunal was yet to become functional, taxpayers should not be left remediless.
The Court accordingly adopted the same approach taken in earlier similar matters and balanced the interests of both sides by:
- directing partial deposit of disputed tax,
- permitting future filing of second appeal before GSTAT, and
- restraining coercive recovery action till disposal of the appeal.
The Bench also clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the dispute.
Final Judgment
The Telangana High Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:
The petitioner shall:
- Deposit 10% of the assessed tax liability within four weeks.
Thereafter:
- The petitioner may approach the GST Appellate Tribunal within three months from the date of its constitution.
Further protection granted:
- No coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner till disposal of the second appeal by the Tribunal, subject to compliance with the 10% deposit condition.
The Court clarified that all issues on merits remain open for consideration before the Tribunal.
Author’s Analysis
This judgment is significant for taxpayers awaiting constitution and operationalization of the GST Appellate Tribunal.
Practical Takeaways
1. High Courts Continue Providing Interim GST Relief
Until GSTAT becomes fully functional, High Courts are consistently stepping in to protect taxpayers from recovery proceedings.
2. Conditional Protection is Becoming Standard
Courts are generally granting relief subject to:
- payment of a percentage of disputed tax,
- undertaking to file appeal once Tribunal becomes operational.
3. No Complete Waiver of Deposit
Even while granting relief, Courts are balancing revenue interests by directing partial deposits.
4. Tribunal Delay Cannot Prejudice Taxpayers
The judgment reinforces that taxpayers should not suffer merely because the statutory appellate forum is unavailable.
5. Useful Precedent for Similar Pending Matters
Taxpayers facing:
- delayed appeals,
- recovery notices,
- GST demand enforcement,
- or absence of GSTAT remedy,
may rely upon this line of Telangana High Court decisions for interim protection.
Conclusion
The Telangana High Court in Shuchi Smita Goel vs Additional Commissioner of Central Tax reaffirmed that taxpayers cannot be denied effective appellate remedies due to delays in constitution of the GST Appellate Tribunal.
By granting interim protection against coercive recovery upon payment of 10% of disputed tax liability, the Court balanced taxpayer rights with revenue safeguards while preserving the statutory appellate mechanism under GST law.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Learned counsel Ms. Himangini Sanghi appears for the petitioner.
Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, appears for respondents No.2 to 4.
2. The writ petition is preferred seeking the following relief:
“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to condone the delay of 133 days in filing the appeal and consequently declaring the order passed by the 1st Respondent in ARN No.AD3604250106772 vide Ref No.ZD360825038111L dated 28-08-2025 as arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India in the interests of justice and pass such further or other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties reached to a consensus. It is agreed that this writ petition may be disposed of in terms of order passed in W.P.No.3600 of 2024, dated 22.02.2024.
4. Accordingly, as agreed, the Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to deposit 10% of the tax liability as assessed by the Assessing Officer with the Department within four weeks from today. The petitioner shall approach the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as, “the Tribunal”) within three months from the date of its constitution/establishment. The Tribunal shall decide the second appeal in accordance with law. Further, subject to depositing 10% of the tax liability within the aforesaid time, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner till the decision of the Tribunal in the second appeal. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
Author Bio
