Telangana High Court Directs Sympathetic Consideration of Delay When Assessee Withdraws Writ Petition to Avail GST Appeal Remedy

Case Overview

Case: Venishetti Sridevi Vs Superintendent of Central Tax and another
Court: Telangana High Court
**W.P. No.😗* 15317 of 2026
Bench: Hon'ble Sri Justice P. Sam Koshy and Hon'ble Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda

Introduction

In a notable procedural development under the GST framework, the Telangana High Court recently disposed of a writ petition filed by an assessee challenging a tax demand order, allowing her to withdraw and instead pursue the statutory appellate remedy available under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Division Bench simultaneously protected the assessee from procedural prejudice by directing the appellate authority to treat the delay in filing the appeal with due sympathy, given that the assessee had been genuinely pursuing proceedings before the High Court.

The ruling once again reinforces a well-established judicial position — that High Courts, while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ordinarily refrain from entertaining tax disputes where adequate statutory remedies remain available and untapped.

Background and Facts of the Case

The writ petition before the Telangana High Court sought to challenge two orders passed against the assessee:

• Order-in-Original dated 19.09.2025, and
• Summary of the Order in FORM GST DRC-07 dated 23.09.2025

Both orders were passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and collectively imposed the following liabilities:

Rather than first availing the appellate remedy under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, the assessee directly approached the Telangana High Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This bypassing of the statutory appellate mechanism formed a core point of contention during the hearing.

Arguments Raised Before the Court

Arguments on Behalf of the Assessee

During the course of the hearing, Mr. Venkat Prasad, learned counsel representing M/s. P V Prasad Associates, appearing for the petitioner, sought the Court's permission to withdraw the writ petition. The primary reasons advanced were:

• The assessee desired to avail the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 rather than continue the writ proceedings.
• Since considerable time had elapsed during the pendency of the writ petition, there was a likelihood of a limitation-related issue before the appellate authority.
• Accordingly, it was requested that the appellate authority be specifically directed to consider any delay sympathetically, keeping in view the fact that the assessee had been bonafidely pursuing the matter before the High Court.

Arguments on Behalf of the Revenue

Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC), appearing for the respondents, raised the following contentions: