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.509 of 2026 Dated: 22.01.2026 Between:

M/s. Upakar Infra Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing Director Mr. Kolan Ravinder Reddy ...Petitioner and The Commissioner of Customs & Central Tax, Appeals-I Commissionerate, GST Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad and 5 others.

...Respondents

Order

Heard Mr. Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel for the petitioner;

Mr. D.Raghavendar Rao, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 and Mr. B.Mukherjee, learned counsel representing Mr. N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No.6.

2. Petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition against the Order-in- Original dated 25.10.2024, upheld by the Order-in-Appeal dated 31.10.2025 also impugned herein for the tax period 2018-19 to 2021-22, whereby penalty of Rs.2,30,68,242/- under Section 122(1)(vii) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act’), and further penalty of Rs.3,10,63,378/- under Section 122(1)(ii) of the Act had been imposed apart from penalty of Rs.50,000/- under Section 122(3)(a) of the Act.

3. Petitioner, in his statement in Para 15 of the Writ Petition, has also stated that since the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the Act was yet to be constituted, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. inter alia

4. Petitioner has taken a number of grounds including initiation of proceedings leading to imposition of tax by Order-in- Original dated 04.05.2024 under Section 73 of the TGST Act by the State Tax authorities. It is also contended that the appellate authority has not dealt with the grounds urged by him and rejected the appeal with a cryptic order, which shows non-application of mind. Therefore, this Court may entertain this Writ Petition and interfere in the impugned orders.

5. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC has also referred to the statement made at Para 15 of the writ petition and submitted that since the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) is constituted and is entertaining appeals, this Court may decline to entertain the Writ Petition in view of alternative statutory remedy of appeal where the petitioner may raise all such grounds on facts and in law.

6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal before the learned GSTAT, we are not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition.

7. Petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal with statutory deposit within the window period prescribed under Order dated 24.09.2025, issued by the learned GSTAT.

8. The instant Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J Date: 22.01.2026

LUR