M/S.M M Brothers vs. State Of Telangana
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. M M Brothers, filed a writ petition challenging proceedings initiated by the 3rd respondent, the Deputy Commissioner (Enforcement), Commercial Taxes Department. The impugned order, dated December 20, 2023, was passed under Section 73 of the CGST and Telangana GST Acts for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The petitioner claimed to have become aware of this order only on October 15, 2025, when it was uploaded to the additional notices tab of the GSTIN portal. They argued that they were not served with the show cause notice and were unaware of the proceedings. The respondents 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 regard to the facts and circumstances, was not inclined to enter into the merits of the issue. Instead, it granted the petitioner liberty to approach the appellate authority. The petitioner was directed to file an appeal with a delay condonation application and statutory pre-deposit within two weeks. The Court stated that it would be open for the petitioner to raise all grounds, both on law and facts, in the appeal. The appellate authority was directed to consider the question of delay and, if satisfied with the reasons provided in the delay condonation application, decide the case on merits. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly. The issue of whether the impugned order was barred by limitation or lacked proper signatures was not decided on merits by the High Court.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the delay in filing, considering the petitioner's claim of not being aware of the proceedings until October 15, 2025, and the impugned order being uploaded to the GSTIN portal's additional notices tab? 2. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to approach the appellate authority with a delay condonation application? The petitioner argued that the writ petition was not belated as they only became aware of the impugned order on October 15, 2025, and were not served with the show cause notice. They contended that the order was merely uploaded to the additional notices tab, thus not coming to their notice. They further argued that the proceedings were illegal and arbitrary, barred by limitation, and lacked proper digital or electronic signatures as required by Rules 142(1) and (5) of the CGST Rules. The respondents, represented by the Special Government Pleader, opposed the prayer on the ground of significant delay in preferring the writ petition, relying 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
ORDER: Heard Mr- B.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr' Swaroop oori[[a, leamed Special Government Pleader for State Tax appearing for respondents. 2' [n the present case' the order dated 20.12.2023 passed under section 73 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, zor7, and centrar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2ol7 (for short 'the Act'), is under challenge. The instant writ
2 , / petition has been filed on 02.02.2026. The petitioner has taken a plea that it came to kno.w of the impugned order which was uploaded on the additional notices tab ,cf GSTIN Portal only on 15.10.2025. The matter relates to Assessment't'ear 2017-18. Therefore, the matter is not belated. This Court may entertain the ,'vrit 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.
Learned Special Govemment Pleader for State Tax appearing for the respondents has opposed the prayer at the outset on the ground ofhuge 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 Ctxsumer Health Care Limitedr' 4.Learnedt:ounselforthepetitionerthereforeseekslibertytothepetitioner to prefer an apreal with a delay condonation application in terms of Section 107(l) read with Section I07(a) of the Acl He submits that the appellate authority may be directed to consider the question of delay sympathetically in view ofthe reasr)ns explained in the delay condonation application' ' (2020) 19 scc 681
J 5.HavingregardtothefactsandcircumstanoesaSnotedabove,thisCourtts not incrined to enter into the merits of the issue as the petitioner is being allowed riberty to approach the apperlate 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 alr such grounds in raw and on facts in the appeal. Needless to say, the appe*ate authority would , consider the question of deray and if he is satisfied with the reasons explained in thedetayqondonationapptication,heshatldecidethecaseonmerits. 6.TheinstantWritPetitioni isposedofaccordingly.Thereshallbeno order as to costs. REDDY ASSISTANT /ffRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (CT), State of Telangana' Secretariat, HYderabad.
The Commissioner of CommercialTaxes, Telangana State, l-lyderabad'
The Deputy commissioner_ (Enft),_ Enforcement^ wing, He.ad of the Oepartment,' C**iiiiiii.-f.u1eg' Department, O/o eommissioner of Cohmercial Taxes, Hyderabad, Telangana.
The Director, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Central Board of lndirect Taxes anh Customs, Govt. of lndia, New Delhi' '
One CC to SRI B. KRISHNA REDDY, Advocate [OPUCI
Two CCs to SRt SWAROOP OORILLA, Special Government Pleader for State Tax, High Court for the State of Telangaha at Hyderabad. [OUTI
One CC to SRI D. RAGHAVENDAR RAO, S.C. for.CBlC IOPUC]
Two CD Copies Miscellaneous applications, if any ngndfe' th4131$ gtosed .T.SRINIVAS I t MP/BSK W
la: "( HIGH COURT DATED :ogt}2t2}26 THE S 7 4 F[8 lrJ?l O * * ER WP.No.3S64 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS '\g arb
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.