##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.39991 of 2025

Dated:30.12.2025

Between:

M/s. Nakshatra Housekeeping Services (also referred to as M/s.NHKS)

…Petitioner

and

The Union of India,

Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance & Revenue Department,

Room No.134, North Block, New Delhi,

and 5 others.

…Respondents

ORDER:

Learned counsel Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud appears for the

petitioner.

Sri D.Raghavendra Rao, learned Senior Standing Counsel for

Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), appears for

respondents No.2, 3, 4 and 6.

2

Sri K.Sai Akarsh, learned Assistant Government Pleader,

representing Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader

for State Tax, appears for respondent No.5.

2. The writ petition has been preferred against the order-in-original

dated 17.07.2023 along with summary of order in Form GST DRC-07

dated 30.04.2024 passed under Section 74 of the Central Goods and

Services Tax Act, 2017, for the tax period 2017-2018 imposing the tax,

penalty and interest.

3. The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that the order-

in-original was passed without issuing notice to the correct address of

the petitioner and the Form GST DRC-07 is unsigned.

4. However, after some arguments, learned counsel for the

petitioner seeks liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the

order-in-original. 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 Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC submits that the

petitioner was at liberty to prefer an appeal against the order-in-original

and DRC-07 taking all the grounds as are available in law and on facts

before the appellate authority in respect of the subject tax period.

3

6. However, upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, since

the petitioner seeks liberty to prefer an appeal, we do not wish to

comment on the merits of the contentions raised by the parties.

7. If the petitioner prefers an appeal within a period of two weeks

with statutory pre-deposit along with an application for condonation of

delay, the learned appellate authority would consider it in accordance

with law also keeping into consideration that it has been pursuing the

writ remedy before this Court in the meantime as well. The petitioner

will be at liberty to take all the grounds in law and on facts before the

appellate authority.

8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid

liberty. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________________________

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ

______________________________________

G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J

30.12.2025

vs