Haji Amin Marvels Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Telangana High Court)
This is a Judgment concerning a writ petition challenging GST proceedings under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 and TGST Act, 2017 for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner challenged the show cause notice, Form GST DRC-01, adjudication order dated 31.12.2023 and Form GST DRC-07, alleging that the show cause notice and order were unsigned and therefore invalid or unauthenticated. During the hearing, the petitioner sought liberty to pursue the statutory appellate remedy and requested consideration of delay in filing the appeal. The State Tax Department submitted that the petitioner could prefer an appeal and raise all available legal and factual grounds before the appellate authority. The Telangana High Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the contentions. It granted the petitioner liberty to file an appeal within two weeks, along with the statutory pre-deposit and a delay condonation application, and permitted all available grounds of law and facts to be raised. The appellate authority was directed to consider the delay and, if satisfied with the reasons, decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Learned counsel Ms. Akruti Goyal appears for the petitioner.
Sri K.Sai Akarsh, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, appears for respondents No.1 and 2.
2. The writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 31.12.2023 along with the proceedings in Form GST DRC-07 dated 31.12.2023 and the show cause notice and Form GST DRC-01 dated 01.06.2022 issued by respondent No.1 under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018.
3. The petitioner has approached this court alleging that impugned show cause notice and the order are unsigned documents and they are not valid or authentic.
4. However, after some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned order. She submits that some delay might have been occurred in approaching the appellate authority and therefore, the appellate authority may be directed to consider it sympathetically.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for State Tax submits that the petitioner was at liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned order 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 he 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.
