Judgment
[ 34881 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENry FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN WRITPE TITION NO: 1 2169 0F 2026 Between:
AND ...PET]TIONER X1:;_S:,?:"T Speciatity Ailoys Limited, D.No.1/1 1Bt1tBt1O7, Jayabheri Siticon !.lllt^ ill9llllt .Rasjl"d_d v _Disrrict. F acto ry 1 43tF., svc r e, l oe, Boila ra m, rangareooy Drstrict- 502 325. Rep. by its lVlanaging Director Mr.yarlagadda Sreedhar 1' The Deputy commissioner, Madhapur-2 circre, Gachibowri CGST Division, Serene Heights, Humayun Nagar, Masab Tank, Hyderabad.
2. The Assistant Commissioner, Madhapur GST Division, Hyderabad.
3. The ynigl .l tndia, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Financq, North Btock, New Delhi - 110 001 .
4' M/s.Henenknecht rndia private Limited, No.11, G.N.T. Road. Ariniivakkam Village, Ponneri Taluk, Chennai. State of Tamilnadu . ----r - -.i'rqrrr\q'|rr ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be preased to issue writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or Direction declaring ('l)the action of the 1st Respondent in issuing the Sumrnary of the Notice in Form GST DRc-01, dated 11.01.2024 and the Summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 04.05.2024, without any signature either physicaily or digitafly, is nonest in the eye of law (2)the action of the .l St Respondent in passing the summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 04.05.2024 and the order-in-
Original, dated 27.O4.2024, without issuing Form GST DRC-01A as contemplated under Rule 142(1A) of the Rules 2017, is not valid in the eye of law (3)the action of the 1st Respondent in issuing the Summary of Show Cause Notice, dated 11.O1 .2024 and passing the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated O4.O5.2024, without generating Document ldentification Number (DlN), for the tax period 2018-19 under the CGST/SGST/IGST Act 2017, is contrary to Circular No.12Bl47l2O19-GST, dated 23.12.2019 and the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia in W.P.(Civil) No.320 of 2022, dated 18.07.2022, and consequently set aside the Summary of thr: Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 04.05.2024 and the Order-in-Original, dated 27.04.2024 passed by the 1st Respondent, for the tax period 2018-19 under the CGST/SGST/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 Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 04.05.2024 and the Order-in-Original, dated 27.04.2024 passed by the 1st Respondent, for the tax period 2018-19 under the CGST/SGST/IGST Act 2017, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, as otherwise, the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship.
l.A. NO: 2 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 direct the 2nd Respondent to revoke the Garnishee Notice in Form GST DRC-13, dated 19.01 .2026 issued to the 4th Respondent, for the tax period 2018-19 under the CGST/SGST/IGST Act 201 7, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, as otherwise, the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOHAMMED RAFI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l &2: SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR CBIC Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUW SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.4: - - - The Court made the following: ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTIC E SRIAPARESH KUMAR SINGH Befween:
AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No.12 169 of2026 DATED: 21.04.2026 AND M/s. sunbeam Specialty Alloys Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, Mr. yarlagadda Sreedhar, Bollaram, Sangaa Reddy District .. Petitioner The Deputy Commissioner, Madhapur-2 Circle, Gachibowli CGST Division, Masab Tank, Hyderabad and 3 others.
. . Respondents ORDER:
Heard Mr. Mohammed Rafi, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr' Dominic Femandes, rearned Senior Standing counser fbr central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) appears for respondent Nos.l and 2.
2 The writ petition has been preferred against the order-in-original dated t I 27.04.2024 along with summary oi order tn Form GST DRC-07 dated 04'05'2024 passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, \
2 t 2017, for the tax period Aprit, 2018 to March, 2019 imposing the tax' penalty and interest.
3.
The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that it has come to know about the liabitity only upon the issuance of the -gamishee notice in Form GST DRC-13 on I9.01.2026.
4.
However, after some arguments, leamed counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the order-in-original. He submits that some dctal might have been occurred in approaching the appellate authority and therefore, he may be directed to consider it sympathetically' 5.
Leamed Senior Standing counsel for cBIC submits that the petitioner wasatlibertytopreferanappealagainsttheorder-in-originalandDRC-07 taking all the grounds as are available in [aw and on facts before the appellate authority in respect of the subject tax period' 6.
However, upon hearing the leamed counsel for the parties, since the petitioner seeks tiberty to prefer an appeal, we do not wish to comment on the merits of the contentions raised by the parties' \ 7 We grant tiberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal within a period of two weeks with statutory pre-deposit and a delay condonation application. The I I . petitioner may take all such grounds of law and lacts in the memo of appeal as
3 are available to it. Needless to say, the appeilate authority if is satisfied on the point of delay, proceed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with taw.
During the period of two weeks within which the petitioner has to file the no coerclve steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned gam ishee notice.
appeal, 8 The Writ Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. However, there shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
SD/. K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REG]STRAR //TRUE COPY// SECT N OFFICER To, PMK '1. The Deputy commissioner, Madhapur-2 circre, Gachibowri GGST Division, Serene Heights, Humayun Nagar, Masab Tank, Hyderabad.
2. The Assistant Commissioner, Madhapur GST Division, Hyderabad.
3. The Secretary, Union of tndia, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi _ 't 10 001.
4. One CC to SRt MOHAMMED RAF|, Advocate tOpUCl 5 one cc to sRl DoMrNrc FERNANDES, Senior Standing counser for cBrc loPUCl 0 9lq CC to SRt N.BHUJANGA RAo, DEpUTy SOLtCtToR GENERAL oF rNDtA [oPUC] 7. Two CD Copies TKS I
HIGH COURT DATED: 2110412026 ORDER WP.No.12169 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS -:-:-.. =:--.
ur sr4;i;* ,P' o 1..)
..(.
rO '\'/x, \ 2 0 r'rAY 2026 h9rp.,",r ctl":
tl-* 1 t