Pathan Amzath Khan Vs Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax (Telangana High Court)
Summary: The Telangana High Court permitted the petitioner to challenge a GST order-in-original through a statutory appeal, with liberty to seek condonation of delay. The Court also directed that no coercive steps be taken pursuant to the impugned garnishee notice during the two-week period granted for filing the appeal.
Background
Pathan Amzath Khan filed a writ petition challenging Order-in-Original No. 62/2023-24-GST dated 13.03.2024, read with the summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 28.03.2024. The petition also challenged an arrear notice bearing OC No. 24/2026 dated 06.03.2026.
The petitioner stated that he came to know of the order-in-original and recovery proceedings after becoming aware of a recovery communication issued by the second respondent to the Forest Divisional Officer, Armoor.
Request to Pursue the Statutory Appeal
After arguing for some time, the petitioner’s counsel sought permission to file an appeal against the order-in-original. Counsel also submitted that there might have been delay in approaching the appellate authority and requested that the delay be considered sympathetically.
The Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC submitted that the petitioner could file an appeal against the order-in-original and DRC-07 summary, raising all grounds available in law and on facts.
High Court’s Directions
The Court refrained from commenting on the merits of the parties’ contentions and granted the petitioner liberty to:
- File an appeal within two weeks.
- Make the statutory pre-deposit.
- File an application for condonation of delay.
- Raise all available grounds of law and fact in the appeal memorandum.
The appellate authority was directed to consider the delay in light of the facts and circumstances. If satisfied with the explanation, it must proceed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law.
Importantly, the Court directed that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned garnishee notice during the two-week period granted for filing the appeal.
The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. No order was passed as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were closed.
Significance
The order gives the petitioner a limited period to invoke the statutory appellate remedy while protecting against coercive action under the garnishee notice during that period. It does not decide the validity of the GST demand or the recovery notice, and it does not itself condone the delay. The appellate authority must first consider the delay; the appeal is to be decided on merits if that explanation is accepted.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Mr. P. Venkat Prasad, learned counsel representing M/s. P V Prasad Associates, appearing for the petitioner.
Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The writ petition has been preferred with the following prayer:
“to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring:
I. the impugned Order-in-Original No.62/2023-24-GST dated 13.03.2024 (C.No.IV/09/38/2023-Adjn(GST) read with the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07 bearing Reference No.ZD360324041153U dated 28.03.2024 passed by Respondent No.1 under the provisions of the CGST/TGST 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.
II. Arrear notice bearing OC No.24/2026 dt.06.03.2026 issued by Respondent No.2 under the provisions of the CGST/TGST 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….”
3. The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that it came to know about the impugned Order-in-Original and recovery proceedings upon becoming aware of the arrear/recovery communication issued by respondent No.2 to the Forest Divisional Officer, Armoor.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing for some time, seeks liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the order-in-original. He submits that some delay might have been occurred in approaching the appellate authority and therefore, it may be directed to consider it sympathetically.
5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC submits that the petitioner was at liberty to prefer an appeal against the order-in-original and summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 taking all the grounds as are available 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. 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 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. During the period of two weeks within which the petitioner has to file the appeal, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned garnishee notice.
8. 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.
