Dyarapogu Kurumaiah vs. Additional Commissioner
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Dyarapogu Kurumaiah, filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original No. 234/2020-Adjn(ADC) ST dated 30.03.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Respondent No. 1). The petitioner also challenged an Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-SWAX-RR-AP2-113/2024-25 dated 12.06.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Respondent No. 2), which rejected the petitioner's appeal on grounds of limitation. The petitioner contended that the Order-in-Original was passed in violation of natural justice, and the appeal was rejected without considering the non-service of the Show Cause Notice and non-receipt of the Order-in-Original in time. The respondents are the Additional Commissioner and the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax.
Held
The Court noted that the order-in-appeal was passed under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, and that an appeal against it lies before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) under Section 86 of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner then prayed for liberty to approach the CESTAT and prefer an appeal with a delay condonation application. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the writ petition suffered from delay and was filed after the appeal period expired, referencing the principle laid down in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo SmithKline Consumer Health Care Limited. Having considered the facts and circumstances, the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to approach the CESTAT by preferring an appeal with a delay condonation application. The Court also directed that no coercive steps be taken for a period of two weeks on the basis of the garnishee notice dated 02.09.2025, if the petitioner prefers an appeal with the statutory pre-deposit within that period. No costs were awarded.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Order-in-Original No. 234/2020-Adjn(ADC) ST dated 30.03.2022, passed by the Additional Commissioner, is violative of the principles of natural justice, unjust, and a failure to exercise discretion judiciously? The petitioner argued that the Order-in-Original was passed without proper service of the Show Cause Notice and without the petitioner receiving the Order-in-Original in time, thus violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner also claimed the order was unjust and that discretion was not exercised judiciously. The respondents did not record any specific arguments on these points in the judgment. 2. Whether the Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-SWAX-RR-AP2-113/2024-25 dated 12.06.2024, passed by the Commissioner, which rejected the petitioner's appeal on grounds of limitation, is sustainable, considering the petitioner's submissions regarding non-service of the Show Cause Notice and non-receipt of the Order-in-Original? The petitioner argued that the appeal was rejected on limitation without considering their submissions about the non-service of the Show Cause Notice and delayed receipt of the Order-in-Original. The respondents, through their counsel, argued that the writ petition suffers from delay and was preferred after the expiry of the appeal period, citing Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo SmithKline Consumer Health Care Limited.
Sections Cited
Section 85, Section 86
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the fotlowing: ORDER
AT ITYDERABAI) AND Dated: 30.03.2026 Between: Dyarapogu Kurumaiah .Petitioner Additional Commissioner, and Ranga Reddy GST Commissionerate, Posnett Bhavan, Tilak Road, Ram Kote, Hyderabad - 500 001, and another. .Respondents ORDER: Leamed counser sri p.N. sun, Kumar Reddy appears for the petitioner sri Dominic Fernandes, Iearned senior standing counsel for central Board of Indirect Taxes and customs (GBIC), appears for the t I respondents.
2
The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: "For the aforesaid rcasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affrdavig it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to quash the Order-in4riginal No.i:342020-Adjn(ADC) ST dated 10.03.2022 passed by Respondent No.l as violative of principles of natural justice, unjust and failure to exerlise discretion judiciously, along with all consequential notice/s / demrnd notice and set aside the Order-in-Appeal No.HYD-SVTAX- RR-.4,P2- l l3l2024A5 datd 12.06.2024 passed by Respondent No.2 rcjecting the appeal filed by Petitioner on grounds of limitation without considering the submission regarding non-service ofthe Show Cau:;e Notice and non receipt of the Order-inOriginal by the Petitioner in time and pass such order or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and grant such other reliefas it deems in the circumstances of the case."
The, order-in-appeal passed under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 (hen:inafter referred to as, "the Act"), is appealable before the leamed Oustoms, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) under Section 86 of the Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, prays that tiberty may be given to the petitioner to approach the leamed CESTAT and prefer an appeal with a delay condonation application.
Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC appearing for the respondents submits that the present writ petition suffers from delay and has been preferred after the expiry of the appeal period. He further , I submits that the writ petition should not be entertained in view of the 3 principles raid down in Assistant commissioner (cr) LTu, Kakinada, v. Graxo smith Kline consumer Hearth care Limitedr. 6' Having regard to the facts and circumstances as noted above, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned cEsrAT by preferring an appear with a deray condonation apprication. If the petitioner prefers an appear with the statutory pre-deposit within a period of two weeks, no coercive steps be taken for the period of two weeks on the basis of the garnishee notice dated 02.09.2025. There shall be no order as to costs. Misceilaneous apprications, if any pending, sha, stand crosed 2 '({o+02 tl sc_c_ 6gt P.C. ASSISTANT //II To, SECTION OFFICER 1 I[: 'Aff Tflif, [??],T:?ii ft:trTf,t %1 S?t r issionerate Posnett
The Commissioner of Customs a Kendriya Shulk Bhavan Ooo. [ri Hyderabad -500 004. l), 7th Floor, Baseerbagh, nd CentralTax Bahadur 3. one cc to sRr p.N.suNrL KUMAR REDDY, Advocate. topucl 4' one CC to SRI DoMlNlc FERNANDES, Senior Standing Counsel forCBIC. IoPUCI
Two CD Copies. BSK I N
,,.f /, HIGH COT'RT DATED:30/03/202G ORDER WP.No.9054 of 2026 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION DRAWN WITHOUT COSTS 1'fi{E ; 2o llPn * .P- F.r -t' * 71, yi @ti.,t,,
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.