Telangana HC Allows GST Appeal Despite Delay – Relief Granted Against Section 73

Sits Cooling System Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner (GST) (Telangana High Court)

Telangana High Court Allows GST Appeal Despite Delay – Relief Granted Against Section 73 Order 

The Telangana High Court once again emphasized that taxpayers should ordinarily pursue the statutory appellate remedy under the GST law even where disputes involve delayed discovery of assessment orders uploaded on the GST portal.

In the present case, the petitioner challenged a Section 73 assessment order and show cause notice relating to FY 2017-18, contending that the order was never properly served and was merely uploaded under the “Additional Notices” tab on the GST portal. While declining to entertain the writ petition directly, the Court granted liberty to file an appeal with a delay condonation application and protected the petitioner from coercive recovery action for a limited period.

Introduction

The Telangana High Court in SITS Cooling System Pvt Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner (GST), Nacharam-II Circle & Others dealt with a writ petition challenging:

• Show cause notice dated 15.06.2022
• Order dated 30.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the CGST/TGST Acts

The petitioner argued that it had no knowledge of the proceedings because the impugned order was uploaded only under the “Additional Notices” tab on the GST portal and no proper service was effected.

The Court, however, followed the settled principle that disputes relating to GST adjudication should ordinarily be addressed through the statutory appellate mechanism.

Case Background

The petitioner challenged GST proceedings pertaining to FY 2017-18.

According to the petitioner:

• The impugned Section 73 order was not properly served
• The order was merely uploaded on the GST portal
• The petitioner became aware of the proceedings much later
• Therefore, the writ petition filed in February 2026 should not be treated as belated

The State Tax Department opposed the writ petition primarily on the ground of delay and relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in:

Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada vs Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (2020) 19 SCC 681

Key Legal Issue

The primary issue before the Court was:

Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging a Section 73 GST order when the petitioner has an alternative appellate remedy available under Section 107 of the GST Act?

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner contended that:

• The assessment order was never properly communicated
• The proceedings were not within the petitioner’s knowledge
• Uploading the order in the “Additional Notices” tab was insufficient service
• The writ petition should therefore be entertained despite delay

During the hearing, however, the petitioner sought liberty to:

• File a statutory appeal
• Submit a delay condonation application under Section 107(4)
• Request sympathetic consideration of the delay

Respondent’s Arguments

The State Tax Department argued that:

• The writ petition suffered from enormous delay
• The petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal
• The Supreme Court’s decision in Glaxo Smith Kline discouraged entertaining delayed writ petitions in tax matters

The Department therefore opposed interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Court Observations

The Telangana High Court observed that:

• The petitioner was seeking to challenge an assessment order passed under Section 73
• The GST statute already provides a complete appellate mechanism under Section 107
• The Court should ordinarily refrain from examining the merits where an alternative remedy exists

At the same time, considering the petitioner’s plea regarding delayed knowledge of the order, the Court permitted the petitioner to approach the appellate authority with:

• Statutory pre-deposit
• Delay condonation application
• All available factual and legal grounds

The Court further clarified that the appellate authority must independently consider the explanation for delay and decide the matter on merits if satisfied.

Final Judgment

The Telangana High Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:

1. The petitioner may file an appeal within two weeks.

2. The petitioner may also file a delay condonation application under Section 107(4) of the GST Act.

3. The appellate authority shall consider the delay explanation sympathetically in accordance with law.

4. The petitioner may raise all factual and legal grounds before the appellate authority.

5. No coercive recovery action shall be taken during the two-week period granted for filing the appeal.

6. No order as to costs was passed.

Author’s Analysis

1. Telangana High Court Reiterates Importance of Statutory Appeals

This judgment reinforces the consistent judicial approach that GST disputes should ordinarily be resolved through:

• Appellate authorities
• Statutory forums
• Departmental mechanisms

before invoking writ jurisdiction.

The Court avoided examining the merits and redirected the taxpayer toward the appellate remedy.

2. Uploading Orders on GST Portal Continues to Generate Litigation

A recurring issue in GST litigation is the validity of service through portal uploads.

Many taxpayers contend that:

• Orders are uploaded under obscure tabs
• No email/SMS alerts are received
• Proceedings come to light only during recovery action

Though the Court did not decide this issue conclusively here, it acknowledged the petitioner’s grievance sufficiently to permit appellate recourse.

3. Glaxo Smith Kline Principle Continues to Influence GST Writ Jurisdiction

The reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Glaxo Smith Kline shows that courts remain reluctant to entertain:

• Delayed writ petitions
• Tax disputes bypassing statutory remedies
• Direct constitutional challenges where appeals are available

Taxpayers should therefore act promptly upon discovery of adverse orders.

4. Delay Condonation Under Section 107 Remains Crucial

The judgment highlights the practical importance of:

• Section 107(1)
• Section 107(4)

for taxpayers who discover orders belatedly.

Courts are increasingly directing taxpayers to:

• File appeals
• Seek condonation
• Explain delayed knowledge of portal-uploaded orders

instead of entertaining writ petitions directly.

5. Interim Protection Against Coercive Recovery Is Significant

A key relief granted by the Court was protection from coercive action during the two-week appeal period.

This provides temporary relief to taxpayers facing:

• Garnishee notices
• Bank attachment
• Recovery proceedings

while pursuing appellate remedies.

Conclusion

The Telangana High Court in SITS Cooling System Pvt Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner (GST) reaffirmed that GST disputes involving Section 73 orders should ordinarily be pursued through statutory appeals rather than writ petitions.

While declining to interfere directly, the Court protected the taxpayer’s right to seek appellate relief with delay condonation and temporarily restrained coercive recovery action.

The judgment serves as another reminder that taxpayers must vigilantly monitor GST portal communications and promptly pursue statutory remedies when disputes arise.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT

Sri Jai Kishan Solanki, learned counsel appears for petitioner.

Sri K. Sai Akarsh, learned Assistant Government Pleader appears for Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

2. In the present case, the order 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’), and show cause notice dated 15.06.2022 are under challenge. The instant Writ Petition has been filed on 17.02.2026. The petitioner has taken a plea that it could not come to know of the impugned order as it was uploaded on the Additional Notices tab of GSTIN Portal only. The matter relates to Financial Year 2017-18. 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.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the learned Special 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.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore seeks liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal with a delay condonation application in terms of Section 107(1) read with Section 107(4) of the Act. He submits that the appellate authority may be directed to consider the question of delay sympathetically in view of the reasons explained in the delay condonation application.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances as noted above, this Court is not inclined to enter into the merits of the issue as the petitioner is being allowed liberty to approach the appellate authority. He may approach the appellate authority within a period of two (2) weeks with a delay condonation application and 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 would consider the question of delay and if he is satisfied with the reasons explained in the delay condonation application, he shall decide the case on merits. During the period of two weeks within which the petitioner has to file an appeal, no coercive steps betaken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned garnishee notice.

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.

Note:

¹ (2020) 19 SCC 681