Gvv Constructions Private Limited Vs Superintendent of Central Tax (Telangana High Court)
The Telangana High Court considered a writ petition challenging a Form GST DRC-01 show cause notice dated 06.11.2024, Form GST DRC-07 order dated 14.02.2025, and Form GST DRC-13 recovery notice dated 05.02.2026 concerning the tax period 2020-2021. The petitioner stated that, after seeking two weeks’ time to furnish documents, it could not pursue the proceedings because its Managing Director underwent renal transplant surgery and consequently remained unaware of the Order-in-Original. After receiving information about the DRC-13 notice from the bank, the petitioner approached the Court and sought liberty to file an appeal with a delay condonation application under Section 107(1) read with Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, 2017. The CBIC Standing Counsel opposed the writ petition citing delay and relied on Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada, v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited. The High Court did not enter into the merits and permitted the petitioner to approach the appellate authority within two weeks with a delay condonation application and statutory pre-deposit, allowing all available legal and factual grounds. The appellate authority was directed to consider the delay and, if satisfied with the reasons, decide the appeal on merits. No coercive steps were to be taken under the DRC-13 notice during the two-week period.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Heard Ms. V. Gayatri Priya, learned counsel representing P V Prasad Associates, learned counsel for the petitioner and 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:
“… declaring that (i) Impugned Show Cause Notice in Form DRC-01 bearing Reference No.ZD361124005906K dated 06-11-2024 and consequential order in Form GST DRC 07 bearing Ref.No. ZD3602250363898 dated 14.02.2025 passed by the Respondent No.1 under the provisions of CGST/TSGST Act, 2017 as being void, arbitrary, illegal without jurisdiction, without authority of law apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265of the Constitution of India and to consequently set aside the same and/or pass …
(ii) That recovery notice in Form GST DRC-13 vide ref. No. bearing Reference No.C.No.V/03/32/2025 dated 05.02.2026 issued by the Respondent No.2 to Respondent No.4 as being void, arbitrary, illegal without jurisdiction, without authority of law apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265of the Constitution of India and to consequently set aside the same and/or pass …”
3. Respondent No.1 issued a show cause notice dated 05.11.2024 to the petitioner requiring it to show cause as to why tax, interest and penalty should not be imposed on it and to submit relevant documents in support thereof. Thereafter, vide letter dated 06.12.2024, the petitioner sought respondent No.1 to grant two weeks’ time to furnish relevant documents. Owing to the renal transplant surgery underwent by the Managing Director of the petitioner, it could not pursue the proceedings. As such, the petitioner remained unaware of passing of the Order-in-Original dated 14.02.2025. Subsequently, respondent No.2 issued Form GST DRC-13 dated 05.02.2026 to respondent No.4 Bank which in turn intimated the same to the petitioner. The matter relates to the tax period 2020-2021. Therefore, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition.
4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC 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 CareLimited1.
5. 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 Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. He submits that the appellate authority may be directed to considerthe question of delay in view of the reasons explained in the delay condonation application.
6. 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. The petitioner may approach the appellate authority within a period of two 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 it is satisfied with the reasons explained in the delay condonation application, it shall decide the case on merits. During the period of two weeks within which the petitioner has to file an appeal, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned garnishee notice in Form GST DRC-13 dated 05.02.2026.
The instant Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed
1 (2020) 19 SCC 681
