M/S Kodati Thirupathi Rao vs. The State Tax Officer

Held

The Court did not delve into the merits of the contentions raised by the parties. Instead, acknowledging the petitioner's request for liberty to prefer an appeal, the Court granted permission to the petitioner to file an appeal within two weeks. This permission is subject to the petitioner making the statutory pre-deposit and filing a delay condonation application. The petitioner is entitled to raise all grounds of law and fact in their appeal memo. The Court directed that the appellate authority shall consider the issue of delay, taking into account the facts and circumstances presented, and if satisfied with the explanation for the delay, proceed to decide the appeal on its merits in accordance with the law. The writ petition was disposed of on this basis.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Kodati Thirupathi Rao, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 29.12.2025 passed by the State Tax Officer (respondent No. 1) for the financial year 2021-22. This order, communicated through Form GST DRC-07, imposed tax, interest, and penalty. The petitioner claimed to have become aware of the liability only when contacted by the department for recovery. The petitioner sought to declare the impugned order illegal and unjustified. During the proceedings, the petitioner sought permission to file an appeal against the impugned order, acknowledging a potential delay in approaching the appellate authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 29.12.2025, passed by the State Tax Officer under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the financial year 2021-22, is illegal and unjustified, as contended by the petitioner? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that they became aware of the tax liability only upon receiving a call from the department for recovery. They sought liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned order, admitting that there might have been a delay in approaching the appellate authority, and requested the appellate authority to consider the appeal sympathetically. Revenue's arguments: The respondent department submitted that the petitioner is free to prefer an appeal against the impugned order, raising all available grounds of law and fact before the appellate authority for the subject tax period.