Gayathri Cargo Movers Vs State of Telangana (Telangana High Court)
Telangana High Court Permits Appeal with Delay Condonation Where GST Consultant’s Contact Details Caused Non-Receipt of Proceedings
The Telangana High Court considered a writ petition challenging a show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 22.01.2024, assessment order dated 16.04.2024 and summary in Form GST DRC-07 dated 16.04.2024 for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019. The petitioner stated that the GST consultant had registered the consultant’s own mobile number and Email ID on the GST portal, resulting in the petitioner being unaware of the adjudication proceedings and learning of the liability only after the assessment order was passed and the statutory appeal period had expired. The petitioner sought liberty to file an appeal, acknowledging that some delay might have occurred. The State Tax Department submitted that the petitioner could prefer an appeal on all available legal and factual grounds. Without commenting on the merits, the High Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal within two weeks, along with the statutory pre-deposit and a delay condonation application. The petitioner was permitted to raise all available grounds, while the appellate authority was directed to consider the delay in light of the stated circumstances and, if satisfied, decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Heard Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel representing Etymos Legal Services Private Limited, for the petitioner and Mr. K. Sai Akarsh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for State Tax.
2. This writ petition has been preferred against the show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 22.01.2024, assessment order dated 16.04.2024 and summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 16.04.2024 for the tax period April, 2018 to March, 2019.
3. The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that his GST consultant has registered his own mobile number and Email ID on the GST portal, due to which the petitioner was unaware of the adjudication proceedings and came to know about the liability only after the assessment order has been passed and the statutory period prescribed for filing an appeal had expired.
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, he may be directed to consider it sympathetically.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for State Tax submits that the petitioner was at liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned order taking all the grounds as are available 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 notwish to comment on the merits of the contentions raised by the parties.
7. Accordingly, 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 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 with the aforesaid liberty. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
