Telangana High Court allows delayed GST appeal with condonation application and statutory pre-deposit

Background of the dispute

In Sri Gajanand Enterprises Vs Superintendent of Central Tax & Others (Telangana High Court), the assessee invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Telangana High Court challenging a GST demand raised under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 for the tax period 2021-22.

The dispute arose out of:

  • Order-in-Original No.26/2025-26-Adjn-Supdt-GST-Bansilalpet dated 29.12.2025, and
  • A consequential Order dated 31.12.2025 along with the Summary of Order in Form GST DRC-07 bearing Ref No. ZD361225120138P dated 31.12.2025.

The assessee approached the High Court alleging that:

  • A reply to the show-cause notice had been filed within time.
  • Supporting documents were also submitted before the adjudicating authority.
  • Despite this, the adjudicating authority allegedly proceeded to pass the Order-in-Original and related orders without considering the reply or documents, and without dealing with the contentions on record.

On these facts, the assessee sought to challenge the order directly before the High Court by way of a writ petition.

Relief sought in the writ petition

The writ petition was framed with a prayer for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, seeking:

  • A declaration that the action of respondent No.1 in issuing Order-in-Original No.26/2025-26-Adjn-Supdt-GST-Bansilalpet dated 29.12.2025, together with the order dated 31.12.2025 and the Summary of Order in Form GST DRC-07 vide Ref No. ZD361225120138P dated 31.12.2025, under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 for the tax period 2021-22, without taking into account the assessee’s reply and supporting documents, was:

    • illegal,
    • arbitrary,
    • self-contradictory,
    • non-speaking, and
    • violative of the assessee’s rights guaranteed under Article 14, Article 19(1)(g) and Article 265 of the Constitution of India; and

  • A consequential setting aside of the impugned orders; and/or

  • Such other orders as the Court deemed fit in the circumstances.

The essence of the grievance was denial of proper consideration of the reply and evidentiary material, leading to an alleged breach of natural justice and constitutional protections.

Case presented before the High Court

Assessee’s submissions

The assessee’s primary case was built on the following assertions:

  • A detailed reply was furnished in response to the show-cause notice.
  • Relevant documents substantiating the assessee’s position were submitted along with the reply.
  • The adjudicating authority allegedly failed to discuss or even advert to these submissions and documents in the Order-in-Original.
  • Consequently, the order was said to be:
    • passed in disregard of the material on record,
    • non-speaking and unreasoned, and
    • contrary to principles of natural justice.

On this basis, the assessee sought High Court intervention in writ jurisdiction instead of, or in addition to, pursuing the statutory appellate mechanism.

Change in strategy during hearing

During the course of arguments, however, the assessee’s counsel altered the approach and requested permission from the Court to:

  • Withdraw from a substantive challenge on merits in writ; and
  • Avail the statutory appellate remedy against the impugned orders.

At the same time, counsel pointed out that:

  • There was a possibility that the limitation period for filing an appeal had already expired or that some delay had occurred.
  • Therefore, appropriate directions were sought so that the appellate authority would consider the appeal and the delay aspect in a fair manner.

Stand of the CBIC

Counsel representing the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) clarified that: