M/S Inckah Infrastructure Technologies Private Limited vs. Superintendent Of Central Tax - Telangana High Court, 30 April 2026

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

\ l3u7 | Between: AND M/s lnckah lnfrastructure Technologies Private Limited, having its ofiice at H.No.4-8212, Baba Nagar Colony, Farooq Nagar, Shadnagar, Rangareddy, Telangana, 509216 Represented by its Director, Shri Himanshu Vashist, S/o. Dharampal Vashist, Aged about 52 Years, Rlo- C-226, Greater Kailash part l,Greater Kailash S.0, South Delhi, Delhi - 110048 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 14224 OF 2026 ...PETITIONER 'l . Superintendent of Central Tax. Shadnaoar Commissionerate, GST Bhavan U.Noj.Sdi.,a Madhapur, Hyderabad_50009 1 Range, Ranga Reddy GST 3, VIP Hills, Jaihind Enclave, Union of lndia,. Ministrv of Finance, Represented by its Secretary Block, New Dethi-110 001 North 2 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be preased to issue a writ, order, or direction more particurarry one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus' to declare that the impugned order in DRC-07 vide Reference No 2D360225079333E datd 26.02.2025 passed by the Respondent No. 1 under the provisions of CGST/TGST Act, 2017 as being void, arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, without authority of law apart from being violative of Articles 1a, 19(1)(g) and 265 0f the constitution of rndia, and to consequenty set aside the same. l.A. NO: 1OF 2026 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay operation of impugned Order in DRC-07 bearing reference no. 2D360225079333E daled 26.02.2025 passed by the Respondent No. '1 Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S P V PRASAD ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SHASHI KIRAN,SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT.,

The Court made the following: ORDER

IN THT HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT ITTDERABN) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.14224 of .2o.26 DATE:30.o,4.2026 Bettreen: M/s. Inckah Infrastnrctr,tre Technologies Priuate Limlted ...Petltioner AND Supedntendent ofCentral Tax and, another ...Respond,ents O R D E R: (As per the Hon'ble Si Justice P. Sam Koshu) Heard M/s. P.V. Prasad Associates, Iearned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. M. Shashi Kiran, learned Stalding Counsel for Central Government appearing for respondents

The instant writ petition has been liled by the petitioner under Articl e 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief/ s, viz., "..--to issue a wril, order, or directton more particularly one in the nature of a lVrit of Mandamus to declare that the impugned - .- Order in DRC-07 vide Reference No. 2D360225079i3i8

i I I l i J I I t I t" t I I I I I PaBe 2 of 3 PSK) & NNR,I wP ,a21 2tt26 duted 26.02.2025 passed by the Respondent No- I under the provi.sions of |'{iST/TGSI Act, 2017 as being void, arbitrary, illegal. without juri iction, without authority of law aport from being violativc oJ Articles 11, l9(l)(g) and 265 of rhe (:on\tituti.'n ol lndia, and to consequently set asidc the same."

The presr-'nt writ petition has filed assailing the order dated 26.02.2025 passed by respondent No.l. Though the impugned order one which has been passed on 26.02.2025, the present writ petition is filed after more than 14 months i.e., on 25.04.2(126. At the outset, this Court is of the opinion that since there is no dispute S regards the department having uploadeo. the impugned order dated26.02.2025 in the portal, the petitioner does not seem to have taken any steps either to check its portal periodically or follow up the proceedings at the department.

The writ pt:trtion now, after 14 months would not be maintainable. Moreover, if the petitioner contends that for the first time he came to know about the impugned order has been passed on 03.03.2026, the petitioner ought to have filed an appeal before the Appellate Forum under Section 107 of the GST Act

Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petltion for the aforesaid two reasons, however, reserving the PSK) & NNR) wP 14224 2026 right to the petitioner to prefer an appea.l subject to the petitioner filing the application along with the condone delay petition. The Appellate authority shall consider the application and also the condone delay application on its own merits in accordance with law, ta}ing into consideration, the period spent by the petitioner before the writ Court, so far as delay is concerned. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, the Appellate authority shall decide the same on its own merits. 5.'/ ' Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No Costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stald closed. r?- . HUSSAIN ALI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //// 6 SECTION OFFICER

One CC to M/S P V Prasad Associates, Advocate [OPUC]

Two CCs to the Special GP for State Tax, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad[OUT]

Two CD Copies To, TJ TKS

HIGH COURT DATED: 3010412026 ORDER WP.No.14224 of 2026 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1 HE o v.? o .L BB iUil2ffi H * * /..1 / ltl L/p{ ,a\t zt