Sai Kumar Enterprises Vs Superintendent of Central Tax (Telangana High Court)
Telangana High Court Permits Manual GST Appeal Where DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded; Grants Protection Against Recovery
Summary: The Telangana High Court disposed of the writ petition filed by Sai Kumar Enterprises challenging an order-in-original dated 04.02.2025 for the tax period July 2017 to March 2020. The petitioner alleged that the order had been passed mechanically, without application of mind and in violation of principles of natural justice. During the hearing, however, the petitioner sought liberty to pursue the statutory appellate remedy and submitted that there might have been some delay in approaching the appellate authority. The Revenue stated that the petitioner was at liberty to file an appeal and raise all grounds available in law and on facts. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the dispute, the High Court granted the petitioner liberty to file an appeal within two weeks along with the statutory pre-deposit and a delay-condonation application. The Court directed the appellate authority to consider the question of delay having regard to the facts and circumstances and, if satisfied regarding the delay, decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without costs.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT.
Mr. S. Viplav Simha Reddy, learned counsel represents Ms. A. Rupa Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) appears for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. The writ petition has been preferred challenging the order-in-original dated 04.02.2025 issued for the tax period July 2017 to March 2020.
3. The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that the impugned order-in-original has been passed mechanically without application of mind and in violation of principles of natural justice.
4. However, after some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner 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 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, if any pending, shall stand closed.
