Telangana HC Permits Taxpayer to Withdraw Writ Petition and Avail Statutory GST

Venishetti Sridevi Vs Superintendent of Central Tax and another (Telangana High Court)

Telangana High Court Permits Taxpayer to Withdraw Writ Petition and Avail Statutory GST Appeal Remedy Delay Before Appellate Authority Directed to Be Considered Sympathetically

Introduction

In a significant procedural ruling under the GST regime, the Telangana High Court in W.P. No.15317 of 2026 – Ms. Venishetti Sridevi v. Superintendent of Central Tax reiterated the importance of exhausting statutory appellate remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Sri Justice P. Sam Koshy and Hon’ble Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition and approach the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, while also directing that the delay in filing the appeal be considered sympathetically.

Background of the Case

The writ petition challenged:

• Order-in-Original dated 19.09.2025, and
• Summary Order in FORM GST DRC-07 dated 23.09.2025 passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017.

The impugned proceedings imposed:

• Tax liability of ₹10,00,702/-
• Along with applicable interest and penalty.

The petitioner directly approached the High Court instead of first filing a statutory appeal before the appellate authority.

Petitioner’s Submission

During the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to avail the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act.

The petitioner further requested the Court to direct the appellate authority to consider the delay sympathetically on the ground that the petitioner had been bona fide pursuing the writ remedy before the High Court.

Revenue’s Stand

The learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC argued that:

• The petitioner had bypassed the statutory appellate mechanism,
• The writ petition itself was filed after some delay,
• Therefore, the petitioner should not automatically receive indulgence.

Findings of the High Court

The Telangana High Court refrained from examining the merits of the dispute and observed that since the petitioner intended to avail the alternate statutory remedy, the writ petition could be disposed of accordingly.

The Court directed that:

• If the petitioner files the appeal within two weeks,
• The appellate authority shall consider the appeal in accordance with law,
• Without being adversely influenced by the delay,
• And while taking into consideration that the petitioner had been pursuing proceedings before the High Court.

Important Legal Principle Reaffirmed

The judgment reinforces a consistent judicial principle:

High Courts ordinarily discourage bypassing statutory appellate remedies under GST laws unless exceptional circumstances exist.

Where an effective alternate remedy exists, courts generally:

• Decline to adjudicate merits,
• Permit taxpayers to approach appellate forums,
• Protect taxpayers against limitation hardships where writ proceedings were pursued bona fide.

Significance of the Ruling

1. Relief for Taxpayers Facing Limitation Issues

The order provides practical relief where taxpayers initially invoke writ jurisdiction and later decide to pursue appellate remedies.

The Court’s direction ensures that:

• Delay caused during pendency of writ proceedings is not treated harshly,
• Substantive justice is prioritized over procedural technicalities.

2. Reinforces Preference for Statutory Appellate Mechanism

The ruling reflects the judiciary’s preference that GST disputes involving:

• Tax demands,
• Penalty disputes,
• Factual adjudication,

should ordinarily be examined by appellate authorities constituted under the statute.

3. Writ Jurisdiction Remains Discretionary

The case again demonstrates that:

• Article 226 jurisdiction is extraordinary,
• High Courts may decline interference where alternate remedies exist,
• Especially in routine tax adjudication matters.

Practical Takeaways for GST Taxpayers

Before filing a writ petition, taxpayers should assess:

• Availability of appellate remedies,
• Limitation timelines,
• Mandatory pre-deposit requirements,
• Whether exceptional grounds truly exist.

Writ petitions may still be maintainable in cases involving:

• Violation of natural justice,
• Lack of jurisdiction,
• Constitutional challenges,
• Patent procedural illegality.

However, in ordinary adjudication disputes, appellate remedies remain the preferred route.

Conclusion

The Telangana High Court’s ruling in Ms. Venishetti Sridevi v. Superintendent of Central Tax serves as another reminder that GST appellate forums are the primary mechanism for challenging assessment and adjudication orders.

At the same time, the Court adopted a balanced approach by safeguarding the taxpayer against procedural prejudice arising from time spent pursuing writ proceedings before the High Court.

The decision underscores the judiciary’s continued effort to balance procedural discipline with equitable access to appellate remedies under the GST framework.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT

Heard Mr. Venkat Prasad, learned counsel representing M/s. P V Prasad Associates, appears for petitioner, Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC) appears for respondents.

2. Order-in-original dated 19.09.2025 and Summary of the order in FORM GST DRC-07 dated 23.09.2025 for the tax passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the CGST Act, 2017’), imposing tax liability of Rs.10,00,702/- along with interest and penalty is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner after some arguments seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the instant Writ Petition in order to approach the appellate authority under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. He submits that the appellate authority may be directed to consider the delay sympathetically as the petitioner had approached this Court.

4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC submits that the petitioner has bypassed the statutory remedy of appeal and approached this Court after some delay.

5. Be that as it may, since the petitioner wants to avail the appellate remedy, this Writ Petition is disposed of without going into the merits of the matter. If the appeal is preferred within a period of two weeks from today, the appellate authority would consider the same, in accordance with law, without being persuaded by any delay in approaching it and also taking into account that the petitioner was pursuing the remedy before this Court. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

6. With the above directions, the instant writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.