M/S.Bhanu Traders vs. State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Bhanu Traders, represented by its proprietor, filed a writ petition challenging proceedings initiated by the Deputy Commissioner (Enforcement Wing) of the Commercial Taxes Department. The impugned action is the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC 07 dated 15.12.2023, along with its Computation Note, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2017-18. The petitioner claims to have become aware of this order only on 15.10.2025, when it was uploaded on the additional notices tab of the GSTIN Portal. The petitioner argues that they were not served with the Show Cause Notice in Form DRC 01 dated 05.11.2022, nor were they aware of the proceedings, and that the order was not properly signed. The respondents, represented by the Special Government Pleader for State Tax, opposed the petition on grounds of delay, citing a Supreme Court decision.

Held

The High Court, having heard both sides, was not inclined to enter into the merits of the issue. Instead, it granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. The Court directed that the petitioner may file an appeal within two weeks from the date of the order, accompanied by a delay condonation application and the statutory pre-deposit. The Court explicitly stated that it would be open for the petitioner to raise all grounds, both legal and factual, in the appeal. The appellate authority was directed to consider the question of delay sympathetically if satisfied with the reasons provided in the delay condonation application, and if so satisfied, to decide the case on merits. The writ petition was disposed of on this basis, with no order as to costs.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition filed on 28.01.2026, challenging an order dated 15.12.2023, is barred by limitation, considering the petitioner claims to have become aware of the order on 15.10.2025, and whether the respondents' contention of delay is valid (turning on the principles of timely filing of appeals and the petitioner's alleged lack of awareness of proceedings). 2. Whether the impugned order passed under Section 73 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is illegal and arbitrary due to alleged non-service of the show cause notice, lack of proper digital or electronic signatures as required by Rules 142(1) and (5) of the CGST Rules, and being barred by limitation (as argued by the petitioner). Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the writ petition is not belated as they only became aware of the impugned order on 15.10.2025, and it was uploaded on the GSTIN portal without their notice. They also contended that they were not served with the show cause notice and that the order lacked proper signatures. They sought to rely on a previous High Court judgment in W.P.No.2110112024 and batch cases. Respondents' contentions: The respondents opposed the prayer on the ground of a "huge delay" in preferring the writ petition, relying on the decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline (Consumer Health Care Limited).