M/S. Aditya Medical Systems vs. The Appellate Joint Commissioner Of State Tax

Held

The Court held that the impugned appellate order has been passed without dealing with the plea of the petitioner based upon the liberty granted by this Court in W.P. No. 33216 of 2025. The Court found that the appellate order did not refer to the liberty granted by this Court, even though such a plea was taken in the memo of appeal. Therefore, the matter requires reconsideration. The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the appellate authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law, uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court. The Court explicitly stated that it was not going into the merits of the challenge. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Aditya Medical Systems, filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated 16.02.2026 passed by the Appellate Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Secunderabad Division. The petitioner's appeal was rejected on the ground of delay. The petitioner contended that the appellate authority failed to consider the liberty granted by this Court in a previous writ petition (W.P. No. 33216 of 2025) disposed of on 03.11.2025, despite this plea being raised in the memo of appeal. The appeal was filed on 19.11.2025. The petitioner sought to set aside the appellate order and requested a direction to restore the appeal for a hearing on merits, with an opportunity for personal hearing and verification of documentary evidence. The respondents are the Appellate Joint Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner (ST), the Commissioner of State Tax, and the State of Telangana.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Joint Commissioner erred in rejecting the petitioner's appeal on grounds of delay without considering the liberty granted by this Court in W.P. No. 33216 of 2025, thereby violating principles of natural justice and the previous court order? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned appellate order suffers from non-application of mind as it failed to consider the liberty granted by this Court in W.P. No. 33216 of 2025, which was disposed of on 03.11.2025. The appeal was filed on 19.11.2025, well within the scope of the liberty granted. The petitioner relied on the previous order of this Court. Respondents' Contention: The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it appears the appeal was not filed within the period of two weeks. However, the counsel could not dispute that the appellate order did not mention the liberty granted by this Court, despite the petitioner raising this plea in the memo of appeal.