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.36434 of 2025 Dated: 09.12.2025 Between:

Jitta Ramana Reddy …Petitioner and The Superintendent, Office of the Superintendent of Central Excise & Service Tax, Mancherial Division, 1-1-/1-2, Ward No.1, Bypass Road, Near Laxmi Talkies, Mancherial – 504 208, and two others. …Respondents

ORDER:

Learned counsel Sri Gajanand Chakravarthy, representing learned counsel Sri Upadhyay Raghavender, appears for the petitioner.

Ms. Pravalika, learned counsel representing Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, appears for respondents No.1 and 2.

2. The impugned order-in-original dated 23.08.2024 relating to the assessment year 2019-2020 has been challenged in the present writ petition preferred on 21.11.2025 on the ground that the show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 was issued beyond the limitation period of 31.05.2024 as prescribed under Notification No.09/2023-Central Tax, dated 31.03.2023. Though the show cause notice was issued on 30.05.2024, but the summary of the show cause notice was issued on 06.08.2024. Therefore, the three months time period between the issuance of the show cause notice and passing of the order in terms of Section 73(2) and (10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, has also not been complied with.

3. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 submits that by Notification No.56/2023-Central Tax, dated 28.12.2023, time limit has been extended for passing the adjudication order for the relevant financial year up to

31.08.2024. She further submits that the show cause notice was issued on 30.05.2024 to which the petitioner submitted its reply and also participated in the personal hearing. The impugned order-in-original has been passed with a clear gap of few days less than three months.

Therefore, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner.

4. However, after some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition in order to approach the appellate authority.

5. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 submits that the appeal may be delayed.

6. In view of the prayer made, instead of making comments on the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority with statutory pre-deposit within a period of two weeks with an application for condonation of delay. Needless to say, on such appeal being filed with statutory pre-deposit, the appellate authority would consider the question of delay to be taken in the application for condonation of delay in accordance with law and if the appellate authority is satisfied with the delay, it may entertain the appeal on merits. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________________________

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ

______________________________________

G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J

09.12.2025

vs