M/S. Kakatiya Energy Systems PVT. LTD. vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Central Tax

Held

The Court granted liberty to the Petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned order within a period of two weeks, subject to pre-deposit and a delay condonation application. The Petitioner was permitted to raise all grounds of fact and law available in the appeal. The Court explicitly stated that it did not wish to comment on the merits of the contentions raised by the parties, as the Petitioner sought liberty to file an appeal. The Court directed that the appeal be considered sympathetically, taking into account the facts and circumstances, and decided in accordance with law if the delay condonation application was allowed. The question of the legality, arbitrariness, and violation of natural justice of the impugned order was expressly left undecided by the High Court.

Facts

M/s. Kakatiya Energy Systems Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court challenging an order in Form GST SPL-07 dated 10.09.2025, issued by the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, Medchal GST Commissionerate (Respondent No. 1). The Petitioner sought to declare the impugned order illegal, arbitrary, and passed in violation of natural justice and without the authority of law. The Petitioner also sought a stay on the recovery of interest and penalty amounting to Rs. 17,96,485. The Respondents included the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, the State of Telangana, and the Union of India.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned Form GST SPL-07 dated 10.09.2025, issued by the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, Medchal GST Commissionerate, is illegal, arbitrary, and passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and without the authority of law, as contended by the Petitioner? The Petitioner argued that the impugned order was illegal, arbitrary, and passed in violation of principles of natural justice and without the authority of law. The Petitioner sought liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned order, acknowledging potential delay in filing the appeal and requesting sympathetic consideration. The Respondents, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, submitted that the Petitioner was at liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned order, taking all available grounds of fact and law. The Court did not record any specific arguments from the State of Telangana or the Union of India regarding the merits of the case.