M/S Adani-Elbit Advanced Systems INDIA Limited vs. Union Of INDIA - Telangana High Court, 01 April 2026

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

rN THE HIGH COUR-rJ9_B_rl!!.:-srArE oF TELANGANA : AT HYDERABAD ' ,; (Special Original Jurisdiction) I .. ... WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL- nryo THoUSAND AND TWENTY SIX . PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH [ 3488 I Block, New Delhi GST Commissionerate GST GST - 500004 Commissionerate 7th , Hyderabad- 500004 ...RESPONDENTS Between: M/s Adani-Elbit Advanced Systems lndia Limited, having..its registered office ai +tn Fbor, Apama Creit, Road No 2, Banjara hills, -S-ecunderabad, ffyOeiiUaA,- tedngqna, 500034 GSTIN 36AAPCA0455K1ZG through its Dileaoi l#mesh K.S,Sio Shivappa, Age 53 yegrs, RUg.fOlA, lstJVlain Road, Foomafir,agna Layout, Bangalor6'Soutli, Banishankari lll Stage, Bangalore - . AND 1. 2. Union of lndia, The Additional Bhawan, LB Stadium 3. The Commissioner, Floor, GST Bhavan, CGST, ium North Basheerbagh petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to (i) issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ for quashing the impugned MO (Annexure P-6) passed by Respondent No' 2 under Section 73 of the Central GST/ Telangana GST Act and OIA dated 21t08t2o25 (Annexure P-12) passed by Respondent No.3. (ii) For issuanry of appropriate wriUorder or direction to the appropriate authority for fresh consideration of the present case on merits. (iii) For issuance of any other appropriate wriUorder or direction which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. lA NO: 1 OF 2:025 Petitiorr under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in :':"'1:' :1:: ' ' ' i the affidavit liled in support of the petition,',,the' High Gourt Tay be pleased to Suspend the impugned Order in Original No-isg/G STt2O23-24-Adjn.(ADC) HYD- .,,'' GST 28l0312(t05 passed by Respondent No, 2, and also Order in Appeal No.Hyd- . _ L!ii: . ::t; _.: .. ._ GST-HYC-AP P 1 -COM MR. -41 -2025-26 dated'21 10812025 passed by Respondent No. 3, pendin,g disposal of this Writ Petition, : ' .,... counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PAWAN ARORA FoR sRl MYI-A sRlHARt Counsel for the Respondent No.l: SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUW counser ror rhe Respondent Nos.2 - r:3k'i"Jl3[u*=ot==tii31l3]t=*o* sc FoR cBtc

The Court made the following: ORDER

a\ AT EYDERABAD run gox'u,B IIm crrrnr lorsucD slu attutBsg xurnaur snvcn ANI) TIIE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHTT'DDIN WRIT PETITION No.34685 of 2025 Dated: 01.04.2026 Between: IWs. Adani-Elbit Advanced Systems India Limited. \ ...Petitioner and Union of India" Through Finance Secretary, North Block, New Delhi, and2 others. ...Respondents ORDER: Learned counsel Sri Pawan Arora, representing learned counsel Sri Myla Srihari, appears for the petitioner. Sri D.Raghavendar Rao, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), appears for respondents No.2 and 3. , *

2 ll .) 2. lhe present writ petition is directdd against the order-irr-original dated 28.03.2024 passed by respondent No'2 and the order-irr-appeal dated 21.08.2025 passed by respondent No,3. 3. '[he order-in-appeal has been challenged on the ground that no opporttrnity of personal hearing was granted in teeth of Section 107(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act,2017 (hereinafter referred to as, ,,thr) Act"). The operative part of the impugned otd"t-in-uppeal is extract:d hereunder ,.6. [n view of the above, I proceed to decide the appgal without gianting the personal hearing to the appellant in as much 3q' the Iubmisiions that are going to be made by the appellan! during the personal hearing, ur" ,r-ot going to alter the facts of the case with r€gad to limitation ORDER:

The appeal is dismissed as time-barred'"

A counrer aftidavit has been filed by the respondents.

Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC submits that the appeai was filed rvith a delay of 242 days. However, in ttre writ petition, the pe,titioner has sought to recompute the delay and taken a different ground. I I

Section 107(8) of the AcJ reads as under: *147. Appeals to Appellate Authority.- xxx \ 8) The Appellate Authority shall give an opportunity to the appellant of being heard."

The language of the above provision shows that opportunity of hearing is mandatory in view of expression "shall" used in it. The appellate authority in his wi om however chose to dismiss the appeal without granting any opportumty of hearing to the petitioner. The . ,.t :' i - ) " approach of the appellate authority is thtrefore in breach of the above statutory provision.

Be that as it may, since no opportqtrg of hearing has been granted before dismissal of the appeal on grounds of delay, in teeth of Section 107(8) of the Act, it is not necessary for us to go into the period of delay or the explanation to be furnished by the petitioner before the appellate authority. It is open for the petitioner to explain the delay befbre the appellate authority who may consider the same.

However, only on account of infraction of the statutory procedure prescribed under Section 107(8) of the Act, the impugned order-in- appeal is set aside. The matter is remitted to the appellate authority to \

4 Ir1 pass a fresh order in accordance with law after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

10.

Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. . //// PSK. #+,- TKS

f I HIGH COURT DATED i01l04l2026 ORDER WP.No.34685 of 2025 ,o u 2 4 APn 2026 TCH q- & * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION $"'- ,,, ,-]., . ,1 , ,,, . .. :. "r- ." : \ rI HE s *