Kodati Thirupathi Rao Vs State Tax Officer (Telangana High Court)
Telangana High Court Permits Appeal Against GST Assessment Order with Delay Condonation Application
Summary: The Telangana High Court considered a writ petition challenging an assessment order and summary in Form GST DRC-07 dated 29.12.2025, passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for financial year 2021-22, imposing tax, interest and penalty. The petitioner stated that he became aware of the liability only after receiving a call from the Department regarding recovery.
During the proceedings, the petitioner sought liberty to pursue the statutory appellate remedy and submitted that some delay might have occurred in approaching the appellate authority. The Department submitted that the petitioner was at liberty to prefer an appeal and raise all available grounds in law and on facts.
The High Court declined to express any opinion on the merits of the parties’ contentions. It granted the petitioner two weeks to prefer an appeal along with the statutory pre-deposit and a delay condonation application. The petitioner was permitted to raise all available grounds of law and fact in the appeal.
The Court directed the appellate authority to consider the question of delay in light of the facts and circumstances and, if satisfied regarding the delay, proceed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Heard Mr. B. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader appears for State Tax.
2. The writ petition has been preferred against the assessment order and summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 29.12.2025 passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the financial year 2021-22 by respondent No.1 imposing tax, interest and penalty on the petitioner.
3. The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that it has come to know about the liability only when it received a call from the department for recovery of the tax.
4. However, after some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned order. He submits that some delay might have been occurred in approaching the appellate authority and therefore, the appellate authority may be directed to consider the appeal sympathetically.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent Department submits that the petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned order taking all the grounds as are available to it 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. Therefore, 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 on 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. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
