Kodigudla Gopinath vs. The Assistant Commissioner (GST)(St)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Kodigudla Gopinath, a sole proprietor, challenged an order dated 23.11.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (GSTXST) under Section 73 of the CGST/TGST Act, 2017, and a subsequent order dated 20.11.2025 rejecting his rectification application. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice and the impugned order were not digitally signed or authenticated as required by Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, and that he was unaware of the proceedings as the order was merely uploaded on the GSTIN portal. The matter pertains to the financial year 2017-18. The petitioner also sought to lift a bank attachment made to his account. The writ petition was filed on 13.02.2026.
Held
The Court did not delve into the merits of the case. Instead, it granted the petitioner liberty to approach the appellate authority within two weeks with a delay condonation application and the statutory pre-deposit. The Court directed that the appellate authority would consider the question of delay sympathetically, provided the reasons explained in the delay condonation application were satisfactory. If the delay was condoned, the appellate authority was to decide the case on its merits, allowing the petitioner to raise all grounds, both factual and legal. The Court noted that the petitioner was seeking to challenge the order passed under Section 73 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner's plea that he came to know of the order only through the GSTIN portal and that the matter related to Financial Year 2017-18 was acknowledged, but the primary relief granted was the liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 23.11.2023 and the show cause notice dated 28.05.2022, passed by the 1st Respondent, are liable to be set aside for not being digitally signed or authenticated as per Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, and for being uploaded only on the GSTIN portal without proper service to the petitioner. 2. Whether the order dated 20.11.2025 rejecting the petitioner's application for rectification is arbitrary and unsustainable. Contentions of the Petitioner: The petitioner argued that the show cause notice and the impugned order are invalid as they lack the mandatory digital signature or e-signature as stipulated under Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017. He further contended that he was not served with the show cause notice and was unaware of the proceedings, as the order was only uploaded on the GSTIN portal. The rejection of his rectification application was also challenged as arbitrary. The petitioner sought to lift the bank attachment to prevent severe loss and hardship. Contentions of the Respondents: The respondents, represented by the Special Government Pleader for State Tax, opposed the prayer on the grounds of a significant delay in filing the writ petition, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Rule 26(3), Section 107(1), Section 107(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
\ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGAI\IA AT HYDERABAI) THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KI'MAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHII'DDIN WRIT PETITION No. 4736 of 2026 DATED z 17.02.2026 Between: Kodigudla Gopinath Petitioner AND The Assistant Commissioner (GSTXST), Vidyanagar Circle, Secunderabad and four others ... Respondents ORI)ER: Sri Jai Kishan Solanki, learned counsel appears for petitioner. Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax appears for respondent Nos.l and2. Smt. B. Kavita Yadav, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Government appears for respondent No.4. 2. [n the present case, the order dated 23.11.2023 passed under Section 73 of the Telangana.Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Central Goods and Services Ta>r Act, 2017 (for short 'the Act'), is under challenge. The instant Writ Petition has been filed on 13.02.2026. The petitioner has taken a plea that it came to know of the impugned order which was uploaded on the Additional Notices tab of GSTIN Portal only. ( \. The matter relates to Financial Year 2017-18. Therefore, the Hq, (AKrS, J) & CMM, J w.P.No.4736 of 2026 matter is not belated. This Court may entertain the Writ Petition on the ground that the petitioner was not served with the shc,w cause notice and not aware of the proceedings initiatect by the Department. Moreover, the impugned order was me:rely uploaded on the Additional Notices tab of GSTIN Portal. tl's such, it was not in the notice of the petitioner.
Learned Special Govemment Pleader for State Tax appearirg for the respondents has opposed the prayer at the outset on the ground of huge delay in preferring this writ petition. Hg has relied upon the decision of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinacla v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer tlealth Care Limitedr:.
Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore seeks liberfy to the petitioner to prefer an appeal with a delay condonation application in terms of Section 107(l) read with Section lO7(4) oI'the Act. He submits that the appellate authority may be directed to consider the question of delay sympathetically in view rtf the reasons explained in the delay condonation application. 2 ' lzozo; t9 scc ot r
3 Hq, (AKrS, Jl & GMM, J W.P.No.4736 of 2O26 1i i I : i i a) \ To 5. 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 delay condonation application and statutory pre-deposit. It is open for the petitioner to take all such grounds in law and on facts in the appeal. Nbedless to say, the appellate 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.
The instant Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. '-U. SUDHA ASS REGI ,,// OFFICER
The Assistant Commissioner (GSTXST), Vidyanagar Division, Telangana ircle, Secunderabad
The Commissioner of State Tax, The -Statq G-ST Departmen.t, State GST Commissioner Office Nampally, Opp. to Gandhi Bhavan, Hyclerabad'
The Principal Secretary Revenue (CT) Department, Sate of Telangana' . Hyderabad.
The Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Union of lndia, North Block, New Delhi-110001
One CC to sRl JAI KISHAN SOLANKI, Advocate [oPUC]
Two CCr; to SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, Special Government Pleader for State Tar:, High Court for the State of Telangaha at Hyderabad. [OUT]
Two CC$ to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at / Hyderabad. [OUT]
One CC to SMT. B. KAVITA YADAV, Senior S.C. for Central Govemment loPUcI
Two CD Copies MP BS o
J I HIGH COU ATED:1710212026 1 HE 1 \ f ( .-) 2 3 rii,il rll7fi * t WP.No.4736 ol 2O2G DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION 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.