The Court may grant liberty to a petitioner to pursue a statutory appeal against a tax order, including the filing of a delay condonation application and statutory pre-deposit, when the petitioner elects to avail of the alternative remedy instead of pursuing a writ petition.

ORDER:

Mr. K.P. Amarnath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader appears for State Tax.

Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel appears for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC).

2. The writ petition has been preferred against the show cause notice dated 03.06.2022 and the order in Form DRC-07 dated 21.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the tax period April 2019 to March 2020.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the State Tax authorities have issued show cause notice dated 03.06.2022 under Section 73 of the Telangana State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. However, since the petitioner has no knowledge about the same, it could not file any objections. Therefore, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order in Form GST DRC-07 on 21.08.2024. Meanwhile, respondent No.3, who is the Superintendent of Central Tax, has issued show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 14.12.2023 seeking to impose tax and other dues along with interest and penalty. Since the petitioner was suffering from various health issues, it could not file reply to the said show cause notice. As such, respondent No.3 confirmed the demand vide order dated 12.04.2024. Against the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before respondent No.4 and the same was allowed on 05.02.2025. The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that it has come to know about the liability vide impugned order dated 21.08.2024 only in the month of July, 2026 on the intimation from the State Tax Department. It is also alleged that the impugned order is unsigned.

4. However, after some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned order. 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 Special Government Pleader for State Tax submits that the petitioner was at liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned order taking all the grounds as are available in law and on facts before the appellate authority in respect of the subject tax period.

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. We grant liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal within a period of two weeks with statutory pre-deposit and a delay condonation application. The petitioner may take all such grounds of law and facts in the memo of appeal as are available to it. Needless to say, the appellate authority would consider the question of delay taking into account the aforesaid facts and circumstances and if he is satisfied on the point of delay, proceed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law.

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

There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.