M/S. Udeva Preci Steel Products Mfg. Co. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Tax And Central Excise
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER
IN THE IIIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT ITYDERABAD THEHoN'BLE TIIE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGII I I I I I AND TIrT'. HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN T PETITION No.9193 of 2026 WRI DATED: 01.04.2026 Between: IWs. Udeva Preci Steel Products Mft. Co., Rep., by its Managing Partner, N. Venkata Ramana Rao, Hyderabad. .. Petitioner AND The Superintendent of Central Tax and Central Excise, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad and 2 others. ... Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri Singam Srinivasa Rao, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dominic Fernandes, leamed Senior Standing Counsel lor Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) appears for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. Petitioner has laid challenge to the order-in-original dated 08.12.2023 and summery of the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 28.12.2023 on the ground that it was passed without considering his reply dated 19.08.2023 and without verifying the records, in violation ol principles of natural justice and the I I procedure prescribed under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 20 l7 (for 2 short, "the CGST Act"). Petitioner immediately thereafter filed a rectification application on 07.02.2024, which has also been rejected by order dated 28.01.2026 also impugned in the writ petition.
According to the petitioner, the adjudication proceedings relates to the period tiom luly,2017 to March, 2018 where due to lack of clarity some suppliers had issued invoices and filed retums using GSTIN 32ZA resulting in mismatch betu,een the GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A/28. The supplier made certain amendnrents in the GST portal in GSTIN applied for 2017-18. However, the respondcnt issued Form GST DRC-01A proposing demand of Rs. I5,37,411:74 alleging excess ITC for 2017-18. Despite submission of a reply and explaining the rnisruatch due to the dual GSTIN issue and suppliers enors requiring veriflcation of amended invoices, the proper officer conducted the adjudication proceedings and passed the order-in-original holding him liable to pay tax, interest and penalty. It is further submitted that the proper officer has not applied his mind and made the necessary corrections even on a rectification applicarion rnade as would appear from a perusal of the order dated 28.01.2026 speciallr paras 9 to 13. Therefore, the petitioner has assailed both the proceedings -1. Lcamed counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a decision of the J Allahabad High Court in M/s. Prakash Medical Stores vs. Union of India and i I ir I i I I I I I )
3 llt 3 othersr' wherein the period spent in pursuing the rectification application has been excluded by relying upon Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for the purposes of preferring an appeal. Leamed counsel for the petitioner has therefore sought to assail the impugred orders on merits as well.
Leamed Senior Standing counser for GBIC submits that the repry referred to by the petitioner is to Form GST DRC-OIA, the intimation prior ro issuance '1 of show cause notice. He has however not submitted any repry to the show cause notice which led the proper officer to pass the irnpugned order-in-originar. However' he does not dispute that since the rectification application was pending all along for about two years, the benefit of Section l4 would enure the petitioner to prefer an appeal to the impugned order_in_original. 6' Having regard to the facts and circumstanccs noted above and that the petitioner seeks to assail the findings of the proper of'ficcr on merits as we , we are ol-the view that the petitioner may approach the appc ate authoritl,.taking a such grounds of law and fact. Ifsuch an appear is pref'erred lvith statutory pre- deposit and delay condonation apprication, the appelratc authority wourd consider the question of delay taking into accornt the pcriod spent during pendency of the rectification application and arso the pcriod spent in pursuing thc rvrir remedy before this court. If the apperate authority is satisfred rvith the explanation for delay' he shall proceed [o dccicrc the appear on .rerits in lVrrr Tax No.5865 of2025, dt: t2.12.2025
4 accordance with law. Let it be made clear that we have not made any comments on the nlerits of the case. 7 Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to N4iscellaneous apnlications, if any pending, shall stand closed. A.H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR ASS STANT REGIS //// ECTION OFFICER
The Superintendent of Central Tax and Central utbullapur Range, Jeedimetla Division Medchal Commissionerate ,H. 2-77t3, Aditya Towers. Sri Sai Enclave, Old Bowenpal ly, Secundera -50001't. The Joint Commis sioner o GST Medchal Commissio nerate,3rd Floor, Medchat GST Bhavan 11 and Customs, -4-69/8, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad-500004 The Secreta ry,U nion of lndia, Ministry of Finahce, Department of Revenue, New Delhi COSTS To 7 PSK. TKS +$J- 2 3 4 6 9n" 99 to sRt STNGAM sR!N!_v4S.4_l_RAo, Advocate tOpUcI 9lg c_9 tS sRr DoMtNtc FERNANDES, SE'ruioiGiAilorru<i courvser FOR CBIC IOPUCi 9.19 g-c^a sRr N TiHUJANGA RAO, DEPUTY SOLtCtToR GENERAL OF rNDtA IOPUC] Two CD Copres
JH GOURT JATED:01 10412026 ORDER WP.No.9193 of 2026 oIT t 0t nw ZW i Hitlj tw,CHEO * o ((r e L,ta t DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS /1/N 6) i \u\ rq
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.