Case Law Details
Kodigudla Gopinath Vs Assistant Commissioner (GST) (ST) (Telangana High Court)
In another important ruling concerning delayed GST litigation, the Telangana High Court in Kodigudla Gopinath v. Assistant Commissioner (GST)(ST) permitted the taxpayer to approach the appellate authority despite substantial delay in challenging the assessment order passed under Section 73 of the GST Act.
The Court declined to examine the merits of the dispute directly under writ jurisdiction but granted liberty to file an appeal along with a delay condonation application and statutory pre-deposit. The judgment once again reflects the High Court’s consistent approach of encouraging taxpayers to avail statutory appellate remedies first.
Case Background
The petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 23.11.2023 passed under Section 73 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 relating to Financial Year 2017-18.
The writ petition was filed before the Telangana High Court on 13.02.2026.
The petitioner argued that:
- No proper show cause notice was served.
- The petitioner was unaware of the proceedings initiated by the Department.
- The impugned order was merely uploaded in the “Additional Notices” tab of the GST portal.
- Since the order came to knowledge only later, the delay should not defeat the taxpayer’s remedy.
Key Legal Issue
The primary issue before the Court was:
Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging a GST assessment order when the petitioner alleges lack of proper service and delayed knowledge of the order?
The Court also considered whether the petitioner should instead be relegated to the appellate remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act.
Arguments Presented
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that:
1. The assessment proceedings were conducted without proper service of notices.
2. The order was uploaded only in the “Additional Notices” tab of the GST portal and was not actually brought to the petitioner’s knowledge.
3. The petitioner became aware of the proceedings much later.
4. Therefore, the writ petition should not be treated as belated despite being filed in 2026 against a 2023 order.
During the hearing, the petitioner alternatively sought liberty to file an appeal with a delay condonation application.
Respondents’ Arguments
The Department opposed the writ petition mainly on the ground of delay and relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in:
Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited
The State argued that:
1. The writ petition suffered from huge delay.
2. Statutory appellate remedy was available.
3. The High Court should not entertain stale tax disputes directly under Article 226.
Court Observations
The Telangana High Court observed that:
- Since the petitioner was willing to avail the statutory appellate remedy, the Court need not enter into the merits of the dispute.
- Questions relating to service of notices, knowledge of proceedings, and legality of the assessment can be examined by the appellate authority.
- The issue of delay could also be considered by the appellate authority upon filing of a proper delay condonation application.
The Court therefore adopted a balanced approach by protecting the petitioner’s right to appeal while maintaining judicial discipline regarding alternate 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 appeal must be accompanied by:
- Statutory pre-deposit, and
- Delay condonation application.
- The petitioner is free to raise all legal and factual grounds before the appellate authority.
- The appellate authority shall consider the delay sympathetically if satisfied with the reasons explained.
No order as to costs was passed.
Author’s Analysis
This judgment carries several practical implications for GST taxpayers:
1. Uploading Orders on GST Portal Continues to Create Litigation
Many taxpayers argue that merely uploading orders in the “Additional Notices” tab is insufficient effective service.
2. High Courts Prefer Statutory Appeal Mechanism
Instead of directly deciding disputed tax matters, courts are increasingly directing taxpayers to appellate forums.
3. Delay Can Still Be Condoned in Genuine Cases
Where taxpayers demonstrate lack of proper knowledge or procedural irregularity, courts may permit delayed appeals.
4. Glaxo Smith Kline Principle Continues to Influence GST Litigation
High Courts continue relying on the Supreme Court ruling to discourage direct writ petitions filed after substantial delay.
5. Taxpayers Must Regularly Monitor GST Portal
This case highlights the importance of continuously checking:
- Additional Notices tab,
- Orders section,
- Notices and communications on GST portal.
Failure to monitor portal communications can result in serious litigation complications.
Conclusion
The Telangana High Court in Kodigudla Gopinath once again emphasized that statutory appellate remedies under GST law should ordinarily be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction.
While the Court refrained from examining the merits of the assessment order, it protected the taxpayer’s right to pursue appeal by permitting delayed filing subject to statutory compliance and satisfactory explanation.
The ruling serves as an important reminder for taxpayers to actively monitor GST portal communications and promptly respond to departmental proceedings to avoid procedural complications later.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Sri Jai Kishan Solanki, learned counsel appears for petitioner.
Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax appears for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Smt. B. Kavita Yadav, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Government appears for respondent No.4.
2. In the present case, the order dated 23.11.2023 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’), is under challenge. The instant Writ Petition has been filed on 13.02.2026. The petitioner has taken a plea that it came to know of the impugned order which was uploaded on the Additional Notices tab of GSTIN Portal only. The matter relates to Financial Year 2017-18. 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 Special Government Pleader for State Tax appearing 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
