##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.9193 of 2026

DATED: 01.04.2026

Between:

M/s. Udeva Preci Steel Products Mft. Co., Rep., by its Managing Partner, N. Venkata Ramana Rao,

Hyderabad. ... Petitioner

AND

The Superintendent of Central Tax and Central Excise, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad and 2 others.

... Respondents

ORDER:

Heard Sri Singam Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of

Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) appears for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. Petitioner has laid challenge to the order-in-original dated 08.12.2023 and summery of the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 28.12.2023 on the ground that it was passed without considering his reply dated 19.08.2023 and without verifying the records, in violation of principles of natural justice and the procedure prescribed under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for

2

short, “the CGST Act”). Petitioner immediately thereafter filed a rectification application on 07.02.2024, which has also been rejected by order dated

28.01.2026 also impugned in the writ petition.

3. According to the petitioner, the adjudication proceedings relates to the period from July, 2017 to March, 2018 where due to lack of clarity some suppliers had issued invoices and filed returns using GSTIN 32ZA resulting in mismatch between the GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A/2B. The supplier made certain amendments in the GST portal in GSTIN applied for 2017-18. However, the respondent issued Form GST DRC-01A proposing demand of Rs.15,37,411=74 alleging excess ITC for 2017-18. Despite submission of a reply and explaining the mismatch due to the dual GSTIN issue and suppliers errors requiring verification of amended invoices, the proper officer conducted the adjudication proceedings and passed the order-in-original holding him liable to pay tax, interest and penalty. It is further submitted that the proper officer has not applied his mind and made the necessary corrections even on a rectification application made as would appear from a perusal of the order dated 28.01.2026 specially paras 9 to 13. Therefore, the petitioner has assailed both the

proceedings.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a decision of the Allahabad High Court in M/s. Prakash Medical Stores vs. Union of India and

3

3 others, Writ Tax No.5865 of 2025, dt: 12.12.2025 , wherein the period spent in pursuing the rectification application has been excluded by relying upon Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for the purposes of preferring an appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has

therefore sought to assail the impugned orders on merits as well.

5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC submits that the reply referred to by the petitioner is to Form GST DRC-01A, the intimation prior to issuance of show cause notice. He has however not submitted any reply to the show cause notice which led the proper officer to pass the impugned order-in-original. However, he does not dispute that since the rectification application was pending all along for about two years, the benefit of Section 14 would enure the

petitioner to prefer an appeal to the impugned order-in-original.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances noted above and that the petitioner seeks to assail the findings of the proper officer on merits as well, we are of the view that the petitioner may approach the appellate authority taking all such grounds of law and fact. If such an appeal is preferred with statutory pre- deposit and delay condonation application, the appellate authority would consider the question of delay taking into account the period spent during pendency of the rectification application and also the period spent in pursuing the writ remedy before this Court. If the appellate authority is satisfied with the explanation for