Writ Withdrawn with Liberty to File Appeal Due to Availability of Tribunal Remedy

Dyarapogu Kurumaiah Vs Additional Commissioner (Telangana High Court)

When a tax dispute reaches a dead end due to procedural delays, it can feel like your options have evaporated. However, a recent ruling from the High Court for the State of Telangana offers a vital lesson for taxpayers on how to keep their legal fight alive even when administrative doors seem shut.

In the case of Dyarapogu Kurumaiah vs. Additional Commissioner, Ranga Reddy GST Commissionerate (Writ Petition No. 9054 of 2026), the court provided a clear path forward for those struggling with time-barred tax orders.

Case Background

The petitioner, Dyarapogu Kurumaiah, approached the High Court to challenge an Order-in-Original (dated 30.03.2022) and a subsequent Order-in-Appeal (dated 12.06.2024). The petitioner argued that the appellate authority had rejected his appeal solely on the grounds of limitation, failing to consider his submission that he never received the original Show Cause Notice or the Order-in-Original in a timely manner.

Key Legal Issue

The primary question before the court was whether it should exercise its writ jurisdiction to intervene in a matter where the petitioner had already exhausted his administrative appeal avenue, which was rejected on technical grounds of limitation.

Arguments Presented

• Petitioner’s Stand: The counsel for the petitioner requested permission to withdraw the writ petition to instead approach the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). They specifically sought the liberty to file a “delay condonation application” to address the expired appeal period.
• Respondents’ Stand: The Senior Standing Counsel for the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) argued that the writ petition itself was filed with significant delay. Relying on the precedent of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada, v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, the respondents contended that the court should not entertain the writ petition given the existence of an alternative statutory remedy.Court Observations

The court, led by The Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Aparesh Kumar Singh and The Hon’ble Sri Justice G.M. Mohiuddin, acknowledged the procedural context. They noted that the order-in-appeal passed under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, is appealable before the CESTAT under Section 86 of the Act. Consequently, the court found it appropriate to allow the petitioner to pursue the correct statutory forum.

Final Judgment

The High Court passed the following orders:

• The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the CESTAT with an appeal and a delay condonation application.
• The court provided a specific protection: if the petitioner files the appeal along with the statutory pre-deposit within two weeks, no coercive steps shall be taken for that period regarding the garnishee notice dated 02.09.2025.
• There was no order as to costs.

Author’s Analysis: Practical Takeaway for Taxpayers

This judgment serves as a practical manual for managing tax recovery issues:

• Respect the Forum: Courts prefer that taxpayers utilize the specialized forums created by law (like the CESTAT) before seeking extraordinary relief via writ petitions.
• The Power of Condonation: If a delay occurs due to genuine issues like non-service of notice, always include a delay condonation application when filing your appeal.
• Seek Interim Protection: When you have a pending legal challenge, ensure you act quickly to secure protection against coercive recovery measures (such as garnishee notices) by fulfilling statutory pre-deposit requirements.
• Keep Records: Ensure your address and contact details with the tax authorities are current to avoid arguments regarding non-receipt of notices.

Conclusion

While the High Court did not rule on the merits of the tax demand, this order provides a critical “lifeline” to the taxpayer. By withdrawing the petition to pursue a proper appeal at the CESTAT, the petitioner gains a chance to have the merits of his case heard. For any taxpayer facing similar procedural roadblocks, the key is to act promptly within the grace period allowed by the court to prevent further recovery actions

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT

Learned counsel Sri P.N. Sunil Kumar Reddy appears for the petitioner.

Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), appears for the respondents.

2. The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“For the aforesaid reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to quash the Order-in-Original No.234/2020-Adjn(ADC) ST dated 30.03.2022 passed by Respondent No.1 as violative of principles of natural justice, unjust and failure to exercise discretion judiciously, along with all consequential notice/s / demand notice and set aside the Order-in-Appeal No.HYD-SVTAX-RR-AP2-113/2024-25 dated 12.06.2024 passed by Respondent No.2 rejecting the appeal filed by Petitioner on grounds of limitation without considering the submission regarding non-service of the Show Cause Notice and non receipt of the Order-in-Original by the Petitioner in time and pass such order or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and grant such other relief as it deems in the circumstances of the case.”

3. The order-in-appeal passed under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”), is appealable before the learned Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) under Section 86 of the Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, prays that liberty may be given to the petitioner to approach the learned CESTAT and prefer an appeal with a delay condonation application.

5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC appearing for the respondents submits that the present writ petition suffers from delay and has been preferred after the expiry of the appeal period. He further submits that the writ petition should not be entertained in view of the principles laid down in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada, v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited¹.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances as noted above, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned CESTAT by preferring an appeal with a delay condonation application. If the petitioner prefers an appeal with the statutory pre-deposit within a period of two weeks, no coercive steps be taken for the period of two weeks on the basis of the garnishee notice dated 02.09.2025. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

Notes: 

¹(2020) 19 SCC 681