Kakatiya Exports Vs Superintendent (Telangana High Court)
The Telangana High Court considered a writ petition challenging the summary of the GST notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 11.09.2023, summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 27.01.2025, and order-in-original dated 26.12.2024, with the petitioner alleging that the DRC-01 and DRC-07 summaries were unsigned. During hearing, the petitioner sought liberty to appeal against the order-in-original and requested that any delay in approaching the appellate authority be considered sympathetically. The CBIC submitted that the petitioner could prefer an appeal against the order-in-original and DRC-07, raising all available grounds of law and facts. The High Court did not comment on the merits and granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal within two weeks, along with the statutory pre-deposit and a delay condonation application. The petitioner was permitted to raise all available grounds of law and facts, while the appellate authority was directed to consider the delay in light of the circumstances and, if satisfied, decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were closed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Learned counsel Sri Mohammed Rafi appears for the petitioner.
Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), appears for respondents 1 and 3.
2. The writ petition has been preferred against the summary of the notice in Form GST DRC-01, dated 11.09.2023, the summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 27.01.2025 and the order-in-original dated 26.12.2024.
3. The petitioner has approached this court alleging that the summary of the show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 11.09.2023 and the summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 27.01.2025 are unsigned documents.
4. However, after some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned 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 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.
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.
