Case Law Details
Bollant Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Telangana (Telangana High Court)
Telangana High Court Permits Delayed GST Appeal Where Taxpayer Claims Order Was Uploaded Only in Additional Notices Tab
The Telangana High Court has once again adopted a taxpayer-friendly approach in cases where GST orders are alleged to have been uploaded only in the “Additional Notices” tab of the GST portal. While declining to examine the merits of the dispute directly, the Court permitted the taxpayer to approach the appellate authority with a delay condonation application and directed that the issue of delay be considered sympathetically.
The judgment reinforces the Court’s emerging trend of allowing taxpayers an opportunity to pursue statutory remedies where they claim lack of awareness of GST proceedings due to portal-related communication issues.
Introduction
In M/s. Bollant Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Telangana, Department of Commercial Taxes & Another, the Telangana High Court dealt with a challenge to an order passed under Section 73 of the Telangana GST Act, 2017 and the Central GST Act, 2017.
The petitioner contended that it became aware of the assessment order only in September 2025 because the order had merely been uploaded in the “Additional Notices” tab of the GST portal and was never effectively served.
Rather than adjudicating the merits of the tax dispute, the Court permitted the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act along with a delay condonation application.
Case Background
The petitioner challenged:
- Order dated 24.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the Telangana GST Act and CGST Act.
- Proceedings relating to Assessment Year 2018-19.
The writ petition was filed on 29.12.2025, almost two years after the impugned order.
The petitioner explained the delay by stating that:
- The order was not properly served.
- The order was merely uploaded in the “Additional Notices” tab on the GST portal.
- The petitioner became aware of the proceedings only in September 2025.
Key Legal Issue
The primary issue before the Court was:
Whether a taxpayer claiming lack of knowledge of a GST order uploaded only in the Additional Notices tab should be permitted to pursue a delayed statutory appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner submitted that:
- It had no knowledge of the proceedings initiated by the department.
- No effective service of the show cause notice was made.
- The assessment order was uploaded only under the Additional Notices tab of the GST portal.
- The petitioner became aware of the order only in September 2025.
- Therefore, the writ petition could not be treated as belated despite the passage of time.
Recognizing the existence of the statutory appellate remedy, the petitioner sought liberty to approach the appellate authority with a delay condonation application.
Department’s Arguments
The State Tax Department opposed the writ petition primarily on the ground of delay.
The respondents relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in:
Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited
The Department contended that:
- The writ petition had been filed after an inordinate delay.
- Such delayed challenges should not ordinarily be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Court’s Observations
1. Court Declined to Examine the Merits
The Telangana High Court observed that, considering the circumstances of the case, it was not inclined to adjudicate the merits of the tax dispute in writ jurisdiction.
Instead, the Court considered it appropriate to allow the petitioner to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.
2. Statutory Appeal Remains the Appropriate Remedy
The Court reiterated that the appellate mechanism under Section 107 of the GST Act remains the proper forum for examining:
- Questions of fact;
- Questions of law;
- Validity of the assessment order;
- Alleged procedural irregularities.
3. Delay Issue Should Be Examined by Appellate Authority
The Bench acknowledged the petitioner’s explanation that the order came to its notice only when it was discovered in the Additional Notices tab of the GST portal.
Accordingly, the Court held that:
- The petitioner may file an appeal along with a delay condonation application.
- The appellate authority should independently examine the reasons for delay.
- If satisfied with the explanation, the authority may decide the appeal on merits.
4. Consistency with Recent Telangana GST Jurisprudence
The ruling aligns with several recent Telangana High Court decisions where taxpayers have raised similar grievances regarding:
- Non-service of notices;
- Uploading of orders in the Additional Notices tab;
- Delayed discovery of assessment proceedings.
Rather than granting substantive relief directly, the Court has consistently preferred directing taxpayers to pursue statutory remedies.
Final Judgment
The Telangana High Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:
√ The petitioner may approach the appellate authority within two weeks.
√ The petitioner may file:
- A statutory appeal;
- A delay condonation application;
- The required statutory pre-deposit.
√ The appellate authority shall consider the delay condonation request in accordance with law.
√ If satisfied with the explanation for delay, the authority shall decide the appeal on merits.
√ No order as to costs was passed.
Author’s Analysis
1. Additional Notices Tab Continues to Generate Litigation
A recurring theme in GST litigation is the taxpayer’s claim that notices and orders were uploaded only in the “Additional Notices” tab and therefore escaped attention.
This case adds to the growing body of decisions dealing with portal-based service disputes.
2. Telangana High Court Continues Its Practical Approach
Rather than dismissing the case solely on limitation grounds, the Court ensured that the taxpayer received an opportunity to present the delay explanation before the statutory appellate authority.
3. Glaxo Smith Kline Still Governs Delayed Writ Challenges
Although the Court granted liberty to appeal, it refrained from entertaining the writ petition itself because of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Glaxo Smith Kline regarding delayed challenges and availability of statutory remedies.
4. Emphasis on Exhaustion of Statutory Remedies
The judgment reinforces the judicial principle that disputes relating to GST assessments should ordinarily be examined through the appellate framework created under the GST legislation.
5. Opportunity to Seek Condonation Preserved
Importantly, the Court did not prejudge the delay issue and left it open for determination by the appellate authority after considering the taxpayer’s explanation.
Practical Takeaways
√ Taxpayers alleging that orders were uploaded only in the Additional Notices tab may still seek appellate remedies.
√ High Courts are increasingly directing taxpayers to pursue Section 107 appeals rather than entertaining writ petitions directly.
√ Delay condonation applications should be supported with detailed explanations and evidence demonstrating lack of knowledge of proceedings.
√ The Supreme Court’s Glaxo Smith Kline decision continues to influence the treatment of delayed GST challenges.
√ Appellate authorities retain discretion to condone delay where sufficient cause is established.
Conclusion
The Telangana High Court in M/s. Bollant Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Telangana reaffirmed its consistent approach of encouraging taxpayers to pursue statutory appellate remedies while preserving their right to seek condonation of delay. The Court declined to examine the merits of the Section 73 assessment order but permitted the taxpayer to approach the appellate authority within two weeks with a delay condonation application and statutory pre-deposit.
Key Takeaway: Taxpayers who discover GST orders belatedly due to alleged portal-service issues should promptly pursue the appellate remedy and provide a comprehensive explanation for the delay, as courts are increasingly allowing such issues to be examined by appellate authorities rather than directly in writ proceedings.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Sri Kailash Nath P.S.S, learned counsel appears for petitioner.
Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax appears for respondents.
2. In the present case, the order dated 24.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act’), are under challenge. The instant Writ Petition has been filed on 29.12.2025. The petitioner has taken a plea that he came to know of the impugned order which was uploaded on the additional notices tab of GSTIN Portal only in September, 2025. The matter relates to Assessment Year 2018-19. Therefore, the matter is not belated. This Court may entertain the Writ Petition on the ground that the petitioner was not served with the show cause notice and not aware of the proceedings initiated by the department. Moreover, the impugned order was merely uploaded on the additional notices tab of GSTIN Portal. As such, it was not in the notice of the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents 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 Care Limited1 .
4. 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 Act. He submits that the appellate authority may be directed to consider the question of delay sympathetically in view of the reasons explained in the delay condonation application.
5. 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. He may approach the appellate authority within a period of two (2) 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 he is satisfied with the reasons explained in the delay condonation application, he shall decide the case on merits.
6. The instant Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Note:
1 (2020) 19 SCC 681
Author Bio
