Sai Maanvi Developers Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Telangana High Court)
Telangana High Court Allows Appeal Against GST Assessment Order with Opportunity to Seek Delay Condonation
Summary: The Telangana High Court, in M/s. Sai Maanvi Developers v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Others, granted a taxpayer liberty to pursue the statutory appellate remedy against a GST assessment order and its summary in Form GST DRC-07 dated 31 December 2024, issued under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for financial year 2023-24. The petitioner, represented by its proprietor Mr. Dommata Venkata Madhava Reddy, submitted that it became aware of the outstanding tax liability only after receiving a telephone call from the Department concerning recovery. The Court did not determine the validity or merits of the underlying assessment.
After advancing arguments, the petitioner’s counsel requested permission to file a statutory appeal, explaining that some delay might have occurred in approaching the appellate authority and seeking sympathetic consideration. The Department submitted that the petitioner could pursue the appeal and raise all available legal and factual grounds relating to the relevant tax period. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy therefore granted liberty to file an appeal within two weeks, accompanied by the statutory pre-deposit and a delay-condonation application.
The High Court directed that the appellate authority consider the question of delay in light of the circumstances explained by the petitioner. If satisfied with the explanation, the authority should decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. All available factual and legal grounds were left open for the petitioner to raise before that authority. The writ petition was disposed of without an order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications were closed.
The order is limited to facilitating access to the appellate remedy. It does not itself condone the delay, set aside the assessment or provide any express protection against recovery. The petitioner must still satisfy the applicable pre-deposit and appeal requirements, and the appellate authority must independently examine the application seeking condonation of delay.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Mr. B.Srinivas, learned counsel appears for the petitioner.
Mr. K.Sai Akarsh, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, appears for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. The writ petition has been preferred against the assessment order and summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 31.12.2024 passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the financial year 2023-24 by respondent No.1 imposing tax on the petitioner.
3. The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that it has come to know about the liability only when it received a call from the department for recovery of the tax.
4. However, after some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned order. He submits that some delay might have been occurred in approaching the appellate authority and therefore, the appellate authority may be directed to consider the appeal sympathetically.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent Department submits that the petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned order taking all the grounds as are available to it 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. Therefore, 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 on 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 it 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. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
