M/S. Accurate Technologies vs. The State Of Telangana

Held

The Court held that the appeal was filed within the condonable period and that the pre-deposit of 10% of the tax dues, made subsequent to the filing of the appeal but before its dismissal, should be treated as valid. The Court acknowledged that these procedural lapses might be due to the assessee's unfamiliarity with the appeal filing procedures. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 15.04.2026 and remanded the matter to the appellate authority. The appellate authority was directed to treat the deposit as the required 10% pre-deposit and proceed to hear the appeal on its merits. The Court explicitly stated that it was not commenting on the merits of the parties' claims.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Accurate Technologies, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 15.04.2026 passed by the Appellate Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Respondent No. 2). This order rejected the petitioner's appeal, which was filed on 20.12.2024 against an order dated 22.08.2024. The rejection was based on the ground of non-pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed tax and the absence of a delay condonation application. The impugned proceedings related to the tax period 2019-20, initiated by a show cause notice in FORM GST DRC-01 dated 27.05.2024. The petitioner argued that the appeal was filed within the condonable period and the pre-deposit was made subsequent to filing but before dismissal. The revenue pointed out that the payment was made but possibly miscategorized.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner was within the condonable period as per Section 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and if the pre-deposit made after filing but before dismissal should be considered valid? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the appeal was filed within the condonable period of one month beyond the initial three months. They also argued that the pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed tax was made subsequent to the filing of the appeal but before its dismissal, and this should have been accepted by the appellate authority. The petitioner sought a remand to the appellate authority for reconsideration on merits. Respondents' arguments: The Special Government Pleader for State Tax, on instructions, pointed out that the payment of 100% of the tax dues was made but might have been clicked under a different 'outstanding dues' category, potentially causing confusion for the appellate authority.