M/S. Opus Industries Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CGST)
Original PDF →Facts
M/s. Opus Industries Private Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court challenging an Order-in-Original dated December 21, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (CGST), Ameerpet Division, Hyderabad. The order pertained to the tax periods 2017-18 to 2021-22. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without serving a show cause notice, without hearing their objections, and without verifying account books and tax invoices, rendering it illegal and violative of natural justice and constitutional provisions. The petitioner also stated that their bankers were threatening to attach bank accounts for recovery. The respondents, represented by the Assistant Commissioner (CGST) and the Union of India, argued that the writ petition was filed more than two years after the impugned order was passed and was therefore barred by limitation, citing a Supreme Court judgment.
Held
The High Court, having considered the submissions of both parties, declined to entertain the writ petition. The Court noted the petitioner's prayer to challenge the impugned Order-in-Original dated December 21, 2023. However, the Court found merit in the respondents' submission regarding the delay in filing the petition. Citing the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, the Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the significant delay. The Court stated that it was up to the petitioner to approach the statutory appellate authority, if permissible in law, against the impugned order. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. The Court made no order as to costs. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also closed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the Order-in-Original dated December 21, 2023, is maintainable in light of the delay in filing, considering the provisions related to the period for challenging such orders? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the Order-in-Original was illegal, arbitrary, and passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and constitutional provisions, as it was issued without a show cause notice, hearing, or verification of records. They sought to set aside the order and prevent recovery actions. Respondents' arguments: The respondents contended that the writ petition was filed more than two years after the impugned order was passed. They relied on the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, arguing that the petition should not be entertained due to the delay.
Sections Cited
CGST Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court madle the foltowing: ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD The Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Anaresh Kumar Sineh and The Hon'ble Sri Justice G.M.Mohiuddin Writ Petition No.69l3 of 2026 Dated: 09.03.2026 Between: M/s. Opus Industries Private Limited 4th Floor, 6-3-9021 A,Central Plaza, Raj bhavan Raod, Hydera bad-500082 Presently at 3d floor, Plot No.l130/A, Usha Jubilee Town 36, Road No.36' Jubilee Hills, HYderabad Rep. by its Managing Director Vuppututri Raghu Ram' S/o V.Gopala Kishan Prasad. ...Petitioner and The Assistant Commissioner (CGST)' Ameerpet, CGST Division' dth and Sth floor, # 8-3-1040, PIot No.l40, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad-500073 and another ...Respondents Order: Mr. Singam Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel appears for petitioner. Mr. D.Raghavendar Rao, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Tax appears for respondent No.l. 2. fhe instant Writ Petition has been preferred with the following prayer: "to issue a Writ of Mandamus or an appropriate writ, direction or order more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring Order-in- Original No.46/2023-24-AC-GST, dated 21.12.2023, in DIN: 20231256YN0000217242 passed by the 1't respondent i.e., 'fhe Assistant Commissioner (CGST), Ameerpet CGST Division, Hyderabad, for the / /
..'r.. period ?-017-18 to 2021-22, without causing service of the show cause notice, without hearing the objections of the petitioner and without verifying the account books and tax invoices as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the CGST Act and against the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g),21 and 265 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bankers have been threertening to attach the bank accounts for proposed recovery. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court in the present Writ Petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be allowecl to approach the appellate authority to challenge the impugned Order-in-C)riginal dated 21.12.2023. 4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Tax submits that the instant Writ Petition has been filed more than two years after passing of the impugned Order-in-Original dated 21.12.2023. The prayer in this Writ Petition is hit by the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Carre Limitedt. Therefore, the instant case may not be entertained. 5. 113ving considered the submissions of the leamed counsel for the parties, w() are not inclined to entertain the instant Writ petition assailing the impugned Order-in-Original dated 21.12.2023, in view of the ratio laid down in Glaxo Smith Ktine Consumer Health Care Limited (supra). It { t 1zozo1 19 scc 681
3 is up to the petitioner to approach the statutory authority, if permissible in law against the impugned Order-in-Original dated Zl.lZ.2023. 6. 'l'he instant Writ Petition is accordingl,r disrnissccl. 'l'here shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. '.K.BHAVANI SWAMY SISTANT REGIS ,/// SECTION OFFICER
One CC to SRI SINGAM SRINIVASA RAO, Advocate [oPUC]
One CC to SRI D. RAGHAVENDRA RAO (SR SC FOR CBIC) [OPUC]
One CC to SRI N. BHUJANGA RAO, Deputy Solicitor General of IoPUCI
Two CD CoPies Vk lndia To, BN BS
HIGH COURT DATED:0910312026 ORDER WP.No.6913 of 2026 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS R ot * s E i{ I b U G",{& tr.*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.