M/S.Diamond Service Center vs. State Of Telangana
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Diamond Service Center, represented by its proprietor, filed a writ petition challenging the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 30.12.2023 and the show cause notice in Form DRC-01 dated 04.06.2022, both issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Adilabad Circle. The petitioner contended that these documents lacked digital or electronic signatures as required by Rules 142(1) and (5) of the CGST Rules. The petitioner claimed to have become aware of the impugned order only in December 2025, when it was uploaded on the GSTIN Portal's additional notices tab, for the tax period 2017-18. The respondents, State of Telangana and the Assistant Commissioner (ST), opposed the petition on grounds of delay. The petitioner sought liberty to file an appeal with a delay condonation application.
Held
The High Court, having considered the submissions, was not inclined to delve into the merits of the case. Instead, it granted the petitioner liberty to approach the appellate authority. The petitioner was directed to file an appeal with a delay condonation application within two weeks, along with the statutory pre-deposit. The Court stated that it would be open for the petitioner to raise all grounds, both on facts and in law, in the appeal. The appellate authority was instructed to consider the question of delay sympathetically if satisfied with the reasons provided in the delay condonation application, and thereafter, decide the case on merits. The writ petition was disposed of with this liberty granted.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable on the grounds that the show cause notice and the order were not properly served on the petitioner and lacked the required digital/electronic signatures as per Rules 142(1) and (5) of the CGST Rules, despite the delay in filing the petition for the tax period 2017-18? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order and show cause notice were illegal and arbitrary due to the absence of digital or electronic signatures, rendering them invalid. They also contended that they were unaware of the proceedings until December 2025 when the order was uploaded on the GSTIN portal, thus explaining the delay. They relied on a previous judgment of the High Court in W.P. No. 21101 of 2024 and batch cases. Respondents' arguments: The respondents opposed the writ petition primarily on the ground of a "huge delay" in preferring the petition. They relied on the Supreme Court decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Rule 142(1), Rule 142(5), Section 107(1), Section 107(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER !
TN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAI) AND D DATED: 09.02.2026 ' Between: M/s. Diamond Service Center, Repl by its Proprietor Sri Alisha Ranjan Ali Gaulani, 10-182/1, Adarsh Nagar, Khoja Colony, Aditabad, Telangana-s0400 t. Petitioner ANI) State of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (CT), Secretariat, Hyderabad & another Respondents ORDER: Heard Mr. B.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, leamed Special Government Pleader for State Tax appearing for respondents. 2. [n 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, 2017 (for short 'the Act'), is under challenge. The instant writ \
2 I I I I I I , petition has t,een filed on 31.12.2025. The petitioner has taken a plea that it came to knorv of the impugned order which was uploaded on the additional notices tab oE GSTIN Portal only in December, 2025. The matter relates to Assessment Y.ear 2017-18. Therefore, the matter is not belated. This Court may entertain the rwit petition on the ground 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
Learnecl Special Govemment Pleader for State Tax appearing for the respondents hils 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 Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline (--onsumer Health Care Limitedl.
Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore seeks liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeat with a delay condonation application in terms of Section 107(l) read vvith 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 ree,sons explained in the detay condonation application. ,I ' 1zozo1 19 scc 68 r
J
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. Needless 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 shafl decide the case on merits. ,. Ji I I I i j ! 6 The instant writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. S-D/.T.SRINIVAS REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR sEcr#oFFrcER //II 1' The principar Secretarv, Revenue Department (cr), state of rerangana, secretariat, Hyoerabio.,' 'sv .-spc, 2' IlB"ff;::""'* Commissioner (sr), Aditabad circte, Aditabad Division, [
One CC to SRt B. KRTSHNA REDDY, Advocate tOpUC] u 4' Two ccs to sRl swABgoP ooRlLLA, special. Government preader for stare Tax, High court ioi in-"tt"i#irJti,g"na at Hyderabad. [ourJ
Two CD Copies To MP I ..,!,...-.ft,
) HIGH COURT DATED ik r: s a i,il! ? t frl l.i i.-.t * * RDER WP.No.456 of 202G DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION UT TS 6 cL
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.