##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH

AND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

WRIT PETITION No.39140 of 2025

Dated:22.12.2025

Between:

Vasavi Nirmaan

…Petitioner

and

Joint Commissioner of Central Tax,

Hyderabad CGST Commissionerate,

GST Bhavan, L.B.Stadium Road, Basheerbagh,

Hyderabad, Telangana – 500 004,

and 2 others.

…Respondents

ORDER:

Learned counsel Sri P.Venkata Prasad, representing

M/s. P.V.Associates, appears for the petitioner.

Sri D.Raghavendar Rao, learned Senior Standing Counsel for

Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, appears for respondent

No.1.

2

Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for

Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, appears for respondent

No.2.

Learned counsel Ms. Bhagyasri, representing Sri N.Bhujanga

Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appears for respondent

No.3.

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

“For all the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit,

it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a

writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a

Writ of Mandamus declaring that impugned Order In Original

No.51/GST/2025-26Adjn. (JC) – HYD - GST dated 30-07-2025

along with Form DRC 07 bearing Ref. No.ZD3608250112897,

ZD360825011297A and ZD360825011306J dated 08-08-2025

passed by the Respondent No.1 under the provisions of

CGST/TGST Act, 2017 as being void, arbitrary, illegal, without

jurisdiction, violative of the principles of natural justice, apart

from being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the

Constitution of India, and to consequently set aside the same and

pass such further or other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may

deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks

permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition in order to avail

the remedy of appeal. He submits that an observation may be made that

the time spent in prosecuting the writ petition may be condoned by the

appellate authority.

3

4. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 also submit that the

issue raised in the writ petition revolves around the factual investigation

on the revenue sharing arrangement between the petitioner and the

developer.

5. Be that as it may, as the petitioner seeks to withdraw the writ

petition with liberty to avail the remedy of appeal, the writ petition is

disposed of as withdrawn without getting into merits of the matter with

liberty as prayed for. If the appeal is filed within two weeks with

statutory pre-deposit, the delay, if any caused due to prosecution of the

writ petition before this Court, may be condoned by the appellate

authority. It would be open for the petitioner to raise all grounds on law

and facts before the appellate authority. There shall be no order as to

costs.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________________________

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ

______________________________________

G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J

22.12.2025

vs