Sits Cooling System PVT LTD vs. The Deputy Commissioner
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, SITS Cooling System Pvt Ltd, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 30.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, along with a show cause notice dated 15.06.2022. The petitioner contended that they were unaware of the impugned order as it was only uploaded on the 'Additional Notices' tab of the GSTIN Portal and not properly served. The matter pertains to the financial year 2017-18. The respondents, represented by the learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, opposed the petition on grounds of delay, citing a Supreme Court decision. The petitioner then sought liberty to file an appeal with a delay condonation application.
Held
The Court, having considered the facts and circumstances, was not inclined to enter into the merits of the issue. It granted the petitioner liberty to approach the appellate authority within two weeks with a delay condonation application and statutory pre-deposit. The Court directed that the appellate authority would consider the question of delay and, if satisfied with the reasons provided in the delay condonation application, decide the case on merits. During the two-week period for filing the appeal, no coercive steps were to be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned garnishee notice. The Court did not decide on the procedural defect of the unsigned order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the delay in filing, considering the impugned order was allegedly uploaded on the GSTIN portal and not directly served on the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to approach the appellate authority with a delay condonation application, and if so, whether the appellate authority should be directed to consider the delay sympathetically? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that they were not properly served with the show cause notice and were unaware of the proceedings as the impugned order was merely uploaded on the 'Additional Notices' tab of the GSTIN Portal. They claimed the matter was not belated as they only became aware of the order recently. They relied on the fact that the order was unsigned, implying a procedural defect under Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, though this specific argument was not elaborated in the final order. Respondents' arguments: The respondents opposed the prayer on the ground of a 'huge delay' in preferring the writ petition and relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 107(1), Section 107(4), Rule 26(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court macle the following: ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT ITYDERABAI) THE TION'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR STNGTI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITIO N No.5111 of 2026 DATED : 19.02.2026 Between: SITS COOLING SYSTEM PVT LTD Petitioner AND The Deputy Commissioner (GST), Nacharam-Il Circle, Saroornagar Division, Telangana, and four others ... Respondents ORDER: Sri Jai Kishan Solanki, learned counsel appears for petitioner. Sri K. Sai Akarsh, leamed Assistant Government Pleader appears for Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, for respondent Nos. I to 4. 2. In the present case, the order dated 30.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 , and Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 201 7 (for short 'the Act'), and show cause notice dated 15.06.2022 are \ \ \ under challenge. The instant Writ Petition has been filed on 2 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J W.P.No.Slll of 2026 17.02.:>-026. The petitioner has taken a pLea that it could not come to know of the impugned order as it was uploaded on the Additi,rnal Notices tab of GSTIN Portal only. The matter relates to Financial Year 2017-18. Therefore, the matter is not belatecl. This Court may entertain the Writ Petition on the grouncl that the petitioner was not served with the show cause notice and not aware of the proceedings initiated by the Department. Moreover, the impugned order was merely uploaded on the Additional Notices tab of GSTIN Portal. As such, it was not in the notice of the petitioner.
I.earned counsel appearing for the learned Special Govenrment Pleader for State Tax has opposed the prayer at the outset on the ground of huge delay in preferring this writ petition. He has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Suprerne Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limitedr. ,, t f ' (zozo) t9 scc 681
3 HCJ (AI{rS. Jl & GMM' J W.P.No.St1I of 2026 \
Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore seeks liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal with a delay condonation applicarion in terms of Section 107(1) read with section 107(4) of the Act. He submits that the appellate authority may be directed to consider the question of delay sympathetically in view of the reasons explained in the delay condonation application.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances as noted above, this Court is not inclined to enter into the merits of the issue as the petitioner is being allowed liberty to approach the appellate authority. He may approach the appellate authority within a period of two (2) weeks with a detay condonation apptication and statutory pre-deposit. It is open for the petitioner to take all such grounds in law and on facts in the appeal. Needless to say, the appetlate authority would consider the question of delay and if he is satisfied with the reasons explained in the delay condonation application, he shall decide the case on merits. During the period of two weeks within which the petitioner has to file an appeal, no coercive steps be \
4 HCJ (AI(rS, J) & GMM. J W.P.No.Slll of 2026 taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned garnishee notice.
The instant Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. Therr: shall be no order as to costs. Misceltaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. B. REKHA RANI TANT REGISTRAR //// SECTION OFFICER To,
The Delruty.Comm.issioner, (GST) State Tax Nacharam-ll Circle, 11 Saroor _ Nagar Division, Telangana.
The Ass;istant CommiSsioner, (GST) State Tax,Nacharam- tl Circle, t\Ialkajgiri Division, Telangana
The cornmissiorer of state Tax, The state GST Department, state GST commis,sioner-office, Nampally, opp. to Gandhi Bhhvan, Hyiteraoio-.
The Principal secretary, Reveriue (c1 Department, The state or telangana, Hyderabad.
The Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue, Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance,
One CC to SRI JAI KISHAN SOLANK|, Advocate [OpUC]
Two ccs to SRI swARoop ooRrLLA, special Gbfi pbader for state Tax, ^ Iigf' 9gqrt !o1Jhe State of Tetangana. [OUT] 8. one cc to sRl N. BHUJANGA RAo, D'eputy Soticitor General of lndia [Ol3UC]
Two CD Copies BN BS Pnta.
HIGH GOURT DATED i1910212026 ORDER I lzl>s WP.No.S111 of 2026 DISPOSIT.IG OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS t 1HE S 1 3 ii t,fi 2fl76 (J * 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.