Case Law Details
NSL Fabricators Vs Superintendent of Central Tax (Telangana High Court)
Telangana High Court – Appeal Remedy Allowed Against Ex-Parte GST Order (W.P. No. 8533 of 2026 – Disposed on 24.03.2026)
Introduction
Ex-parte GST orders often create serious financial strain, especially when followed by bank attachment. The Telangana High Court, in this case, ensured that the taxpayer gets a fair chance by directing them to pursue the appellate remedy.
Case Background
The petitioner challenged:
- Order-in-Original dated 26.03.2024
- DRC-07 dated 02.05.2024
The petitioner claimed that:
- Order was passed without considering reply
- Liability came to notice only after garnishee notice (DRC-13)
Key Legal Issue
Whether relief can be granted where GST order is passed without proper consideration of reply?
Arguments
- Petitioner: Order passed without hearing
- Department: Appeal remedy available
Court Observations
- Court did not go into merits
- Held that statutory appeal is appropriate remedy
- Delay should be considered sympathetically
Final Judgment
- Allowed filing of appeal within 2 weeks
- Directed consideration of delay condonation
- No coercive steps during this period
- Writ disposed
Author’s Analysis
- Even ex-parte orders can be challenged through appeal
- Courts protect taxpayers from immediate recovery actions
- Timely use of appellate remedy is crucial
Conclusion
The judgment reinforces that appeal is the primary remedy and taxpayers must use it effectively, even in cases of delayed action.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Heard Mr. Jai Kishan Solanki, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) appearing for respondents No.1 to 3.
2. The Writ Petition has been preferred against the Order-in-Original dated 26.03.2024 along with summary of order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 02.05.2024, passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the tax period April, 2018 to March, 2019 imposing the tax, penalty and interest.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1 has passed the impugned Order-in-Original dated 26.03.2024 and the summary of order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 02.05.2024, without considering his reply and without assigning any reasons. The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that it has come to know about the liability upon issuance of the garnishee notice in Form GST DRC-13 on 05.02.2026 for attachment of its bank account.
4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC submits that the petitioner was at liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned Order-in-Original dated 26.03.2024 and the summary of order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 02.05.2024 taking all the grounds as are available in law and on facts before the appellate authority in respect of the subject tax period.
5. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, without going into the merits of the matter, 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 in law and on facts in the memo of appeal as are available to it. Needless to say, the appellate authority would consider the question of delay sympathetically 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. 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.
6. 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.
Author Bio
