Judgment
[ 34881 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION NO: 8187 OF 2026 Between:
M/s.Gayathri Enterprises,, 465-872, Enumamula, Warangal, Hanurnakoda - 5OO OO2. State of Telangana. Rep. by its Proprietor Mr.Janardhan Bandi' aged about 57 years, Occ.Business ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Joint Commissioner, Appeals-||,, Office of the Commissioner, Appeals-ll' Hyderabad Commissionerate, GST Bhavan, Basheerbagh' Hyderabad.
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,, Warangal Division' Hanamkonda.
3. The Union of lndia,, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance' North Block' New Delhi - 1'10 001.
4. The Central Board of lndirect Taxes and Customs,, Rep by its Chairman, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, Cenkal Secretariat, New Delhi-100 001.
...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 28 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direcjion declaring. (1) the action of the 1st Respondent in not considering the contentions of the Petitioner raised in the Grounds of Appeal and documentary evidence filed on O2lOGl2025 and 09lOGl2O25 and passing the Order-in-Appeat, dated 31t12t2025 in a summary manner, for the tax penod 2020-21 under the IGST Act 2017, served on
the Petitioner through RPAD, without passing Order in Form GST APL-04 online, as per Rule 1 13(1) of the IGST Act 2017 and not uploading the Order-in-Appeal, dated 31112t2025 online, as arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the IGST Act 2017,and not valid in the eye of law, in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Rule of Law. (2) the action of the 2nd Respondent in issuing Show Cause Notice, dated 24110t2O24 and passing the Order-in-Original, dated OAOU2O25 and the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, daled O2lO1l2O25, for the tax period 2O2O-21 under the IGST Act 2017, without providing sufficient opportunity of filing further documentary, evidence required by the 2nd Respondent, without any signature either physically or digitally on the Summary of Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01, dated 2411O12024 and on the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dald 0210112025, is nonest and not valid in the eye of law and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice. (3) the action of the 2nd Respondent in not issuing Form DRC-O1A before passing the Orders, as contemplated under Rule 142(1Al ot the CGST/SGST Rules 2017, amounts to invalid. (4) the action of the 2nd Respondent in not generating DIN in the Notices and Orders, as not valid in the eye of law. and consequently set aside the Order-in-Appeal, dated g1112t2025 passed by the 1st Respondent. and the Order-in-Original, dated 0210112025 and the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated OAUAO2S passed by the 2nd Respondent, for the tax period 2020-21 under the IGST Act 2017, as null and void.
l.A. NO:1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Suspend the Operation of the Order-in-Appeal, dated 31112D025 passed by the 1st Respondent.andtheorder-in.original'datedo2toll2o2sandtheSummaryofthe order in Form GST DRC-07, daled o2to1t2o25 passed by the 2nd Respondent, for the tax period 2O2O-21 under the IGST Act 2017, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, as otherwise, the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI- SHAIK JEELANI BASHA co,n".r for the Respondent Nos.1,2 and 4: MIS. PRAVALIKA' APPEARING ronsnt.DoMlNlcFERNANDES(sENloRSTAND|NGcoUNsELFoRcBlc) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI BHUJANGA RAO, SC FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT The Court made the following: OROER
t ( INTHEHIGHCOURTFORTHESTATEOFTELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR STNGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN DATED: 09.06.2026 Between:
Ivl/s.Gayathri Enterprises, Warangal, Rep. by its Proprietor Mr. Janardhan Bandi AND Petitioner The Joint Commissioner, Appeals-Il, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad and three others Respondents ORDER:
Heard Mr. Shaik Jeelani Basha,' learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Pravalika, learned counsel appearing for Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of lndirect Taxes and Customs for respondent Nos. 1,2 and 4.
2- The petitioner is aggrieved by the show cause notice dated 24.t0.2024, the order-in-original dated 02.01.2025 and the summary of the order in Form ,/ GST DRC-07 of the same date for the tax period 2o2o-2r and also the order-in-appeal dated 31.12.2025 on grounds of violation of principles oflnarural justice and non-consideration of the documents submitted by the petitioner even bv the appellate authority. The adjudicating authority had by the impugned II
2 order-in-original dated 02.01.2025 confirmed the dcmand of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) of Rs. 1,06,40,912/'along with applicable interest under Section 50 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ,CGST Act') and penalty of the equivalent amount under Section 74 of the CGST Act read with Section 122(2)(b) of the CGST Act, on the grounds of non- compliance of conditions for availing benefit under Notification No.4ll2017- IGST (Rate), dated 23.10.2017. During the course of the appeal proceedings, the petitioner was allowed to submit shipping bills and proof of export to substantiate that the goods havc been expofted and the conditions of the notification have been complied with' By letters dated 30'05'2025 and Og.O5.2025,he supplied the documents which are as follows:
l. ReciPients details 2' Bill ollading shipping bill number and date 3' Purchasc orders a. Copi"' of invoices issued by the supplier 5. ExPort Gencral N4anilest (58) 3.
According to the petitioner' the appellate authority has neither dealt with thegroundsofappealnot.thedocumentssubmittedduringpersonalhearingto substantiate that the goods have been exported and the conditions of the notification have been complied rvith. 't'he petitioner had in his grounds of I I appeal also questioned the invocation o[ Section 74 of the CGST Act as there was no fraud' willful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax' Even if the conditions of Notification No'41/2017-IGST (Rate) are not tulfilled' it cannot be held that the goods were supplied by reason of fraud or any willful
3 { misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax. The petitioner had fulfilled one or more conditions with reference to 103 invoices.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authority ought to have seen that in terms of condition No.9 of the Notification No.4|/2017-IGST (Rate), the burden is cast on the registered recipient to provide the documents and not otherwise. It is therefore, submitted that the order-in-appeal and the order-in-original suffer from clear non-application of mind and failure to deal with the grounds of appeal and the documents evidenced to substantiate that the goods were exported and conditions of the notification were fulfilled. [n such circumstances, the impugned order-in-appeal also deserves to be set aside by remanding the matter for re-consideration to the original authority.
5.
Learned counsel for the Revenue in reply refers to the finding rendered by the appellate authority in the order-in-appeal particularl y para 7.2 thereof, which, according to the learned counsel, deals with the documents of Export General Manifests (EGMs) along with tax invoices fumished by the petitioner during the course of appear proceedings,. on consideration of which, the appellate authority categorically held that the EGMs merely reflect shipping bill numbers and do not establish invoice-wise correlation or particulars of the goods supplied' In the absence of shipping bills evidencing such correlation and the date of export, compliance with the conditions of the Notification No.4 l/20t7- IGST (Rate) could not be conclusively verified. It is submitted that the appellate / /
4 authority therefore rightly held that the petitioner has failed to furnish the documentary evidence to demonstrate compliance with the conditions of Notification No.4ll2017-IGST (Rate) despite sufficient opportunity. The discrepancy remained un-rebutted. It is further submitted that the petitioner has availed the remedy ofthe appeal under Section 107(l) ofthe Act before the first appellate authority. It is open for him to take all such grounds of law and fact before the second appellate authority i.e., Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) under Section I 12 of the CGST Act. tt is submitted that the tirnelimitforfilingoftheappealisupto3o.06.2o26.Therefore,thepetitioner may be relegated to the appetlate remedy' 6.Wehaveconsideredthesubmissionsoftheleamedcounselforthepaties.
we have also taken note of the materials placed on record including the grounds riised before the appellate authority and the documents submitted by the petitioner during appeal proceedings' record and the submissions of the the view that the contention of the 7 On consideration of the materials on learned counsel for the parties' we are of petitioner that the appellate authority has violated the principles of natural justice by not considering the relevant documents produced even during the and the grounds trrged in the memo of aPPeal does not merit appeal sideration of the material acceptance erusal of the appellate order shows con P documents relied upon by the petitioner upon which the appellate authoritY has
5 held that they do not establish invoice-wise correlation or particulars of the goods supplied. Whether the materials and the documents placed befort the original authority or the appellate authority did satisfr the conditions of notification No.4L1}}L7-IGST (Rate) is the question relating to the merits of the case which the appellate body i.e., GSTAT can properly appreciate. The writ Court should refrain from entering into the merits of the findings of the inferior \ Tribunal or Authority unless the ingredients to invoke the jurisdiction of the ( Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out i.e., (i) if the impugned decision suffers from violation of principles ofnatural justice, and (ii) if it is without jurisdiction or in violation of the statutory rules or (iii) suffers from malafides 8.
In the facts and circumstances, we do not find these grounds made out to interfere in the decision of the appellate authority. It is trite to say that in exercise of the powers under writ jurisdiction, this Court is entitled to examine the infirmity in the decision making process while restraining itself from entering into the correctness of the decision itself, which is for the statutory appellate authority to examine. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition on the grounds urged. The petitioner is at liberty to avail the appellate remedy under Section ll2 of the CGST Act before the learned GSTAT within the limitation period with statutory deposit. Needless to say, it is open for the petitioner to take all such grounds of law and facts before ( \
6 I the second appellate authority. Needless to say, we make it clear that this Court has not made any comment on the merits of the case of the petitioner.
9.
The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above said observations.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
SD'-A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUry REGISTRAR SECTION OF To, 1. The Joint Commissioner, AppealsJl,, Office of the Commissioner, AppealsJl, Hyderabad Commissioneraie, GST Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,, Warangal Division, Hanamkonda.
3. The Secretary, The Union of lndia,, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi- 110 001.
4. The Chairman, The Central Board of lndirect Taxes and Customs,, The Chairman, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi-100 001.
5. One CC to Sri Shaik Jeelani Basha, Advocate [OPUCI 6. One CC to Sri Dominic Fernandes (senior standing counsel for CBIC) [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri Bhujanga Rao, SC for Central Government[OPUC] 8. Two CD Copies iE 6 TJ d GJP
f HIGH COURT TE a a 26 a D EE] Elrl HES la 1 € t WP.No.Blgl of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION 3 oo itll 2026 I * t SPATCH UT S t