IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.33880 of 2025 DATE OF ORDER: 24.02.2026 Between :

M/s.Rajeshwara Rao Allam.

…Petitioner AND The Commissioner of Customs & Central Tax, Appeal - I Commissionerate, L B Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad and 3 others.

…Respondents

ORDER:

(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P. Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr. Ganesh Bhujanga Rao Vadduri, learned counsel for the

petitioner; and Mr. R.Sushanth Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel

for CBIC appearing on behalf of respondents.

2. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 28.06.2025, in Appeal No.54/2025-RR (ST), passed by respondent No.1.

3. Vide the impugned order, the respondent No.1 rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner on the ground of limitation.

4. The brief facts and dates relevant for adjudication of the instant case are that the Order-In-Original (for short ‘OIO’) was one which was passed on 29.12.2022 by respondent No.2. Against the said OIO, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act before respondent No.1. The appeal was filed on 13.05.2025. There was a delay of about 2½ years in filing the appeal. Explaining the delay, the contention of the petitioner was that he had received telephonic instructions from the Department only in February, 2025. Immediately, he had applied for the certified copy and received the same on 18.02.2025 and thereafter the appeal was filed on 13.05.2025. Therefore, the appeal was filed within the period of limitation. The other contention of the petitioner was that along with the appeal, he has also deposited

7.5% of the disputed tax as pre-deposit. Thus, the respondent No.1 ought to have held that the appeal has been filed within the period of limitation and thereafter should had proceeded to decide the case on its own merits in accordance with law.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that order passed by respondent No.1 was in violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the appeal of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of limitation. It was also contended that since the OIO passed by respondent No.2 on 29.12.2022 was received on 18.02.2025, the appeal filed by the petitioner before respondent No.1 was within the period of limitation. Thus, the respondent No.1 was not correct and justified in rejecting the appeal of the petitioner and the order passed by respondent No.1 is illegal, unjustified and in violation of the principles of natural justice.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that serving a copy by e-mail is not what is mandated under the Act and, therefore, if the Department is claiming to have served through e-mail, the same is not acceptable and is in contravention to the statutory provisions.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that respondent No.1 without verifying whether the petitioner had received the impugned order through e-mail or not, unjustifiably rejecting the appeal of the petitioner as time barred despite the petitioner stating that OIO was received in person from the office of the respondent No.2 on 18.02.2025. Therefore, the appeal before respondent No.1 was filed well within the period of limitation.

8. It was lastly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once when the statute provides for a procedure to be followed so far as serving of the orders passed by authorities, it has to be done accordingly. Any other mode other than what is prescribed under the statute would not be acceptable mode of service.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions relied upon the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Amidev Agro Care Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, 2012 (26) S.T.R. 299(Bom.)

10. Opposing t