M/S. Abms Infra vs. Goods And Services Tax Network (Gstn)
Original PDF →Facts
M/s. ABMS INFR (Petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes) (Respondent No. 2) under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 and Telangana GST Act, 2017. The order imposed a tax liability of Rs. 96,060/-, a similar amount as penalty under Section 74(9), and interest of Rs. 51,352/- for the period October 2022. The Petitioner claimed to have paid outstanding dues during adjudication and sought to file an appeal without pre-deposit, citing good grounds to explain the delay. However, time for filing the appeal expired during correspondence with GSTN. The Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing GSTN to provide an effective remedy for filing appeals or to permit manual filing of appeals.
Held
The Court held that there is no exemption for any taxpayer from making the pre-deposit while filing an appeal under the GST regime. The question of whether the liability of penalty or tax was rightly imposed is a matter to be decided on merits by the appellate authority and cannot be a ground to seek exemption from making the pre-deposit. However, acknowledging that the Petitioner had been in correspondence with the respondent authorities and missed the cut-off date for filing the appeal, the Court granted liberty to the Petitioner to file the appeal within a period of two weeks. This filing must include the statutory deposit and a delay condonation application. The Petitioner was permitted to raise all available grounds of law and facts in the appeal memo. The Court directed the appellate authority to consider the question of delay sympathetically, taking into account the facts and circumstances, and if satisfied with the delay, proceed to decide the appeal on merits within a reasonable time, preferably within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to an effective remedy for filing an appeal against the impugned order dated 03.09.2025 without making the statutory pre-deposit, given that the tax dues were allegedly paid during adjudication and the Petitioner claims to have good grounds to explain the delay in filing the appeal? (Section 74, CGST Act, 2017 and Telangana GST Act, 2017). Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner contended that since the outstanding tax dues had already been paid and no case for penalty could be made out, they should not be compelled to make a pre-deposit of two against the penalty amount. They also claimed to have good grounds to explain the delay in filing the appeal. Respondents' Argument: The GSTN (Respondent No. 1) argued that it has no power to exempt pre-deposit for filing an appeal. The Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes) (Respondent No. 2) and State of Telangana (Respondent No. 3) submitted that pre-deposit is a prerequisite for filing an appeal and that the issue of whether penalty was rightly imposed is for the appellate authority to decide upon filing the appeal with pre-deposit. They suggested granting liberty to approach the appellate authority with an explanation for the delay.
Sections Cited
Section 74, Section 74(9)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER
F IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA Writ Petition No.3450 of 2026 Dated: 06.02.2026 Between: M/s.ABMS INFR, Rep by its Partner Mr.Biksharn Pallapu, #12-l-85/86/5P, R.No.2, Shivani Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 067. . . .Petitioner AND Goods and Services Tax Netrvork (GSTN), Worldmark I, Aerocity, lndira Gandhi Intt.Airport, New Delhi. India I l0 037 and others. ...Respondents ORDER, @e r L{on'blc Sri Justicc l'.Sam ktshy) Heard Mr.K.P.Amarnath Reddy, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Dominic Femandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC appearing on behalf of respondent No.l; MrJ.Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant Govemment Pleader representing Mr.Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Govemment Pleader fol State Tax appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2
2 and 3 and Mr.B.Mukharjee, learned counsel representing Mr.N.Bhujanga Rao, leamed Deputy Solicitor G,: t:ral of India appearing on behalf of respondent No.4. perused th: record.
The petitioner claims to have paid the or,t ran<ling dues after issuance of the show cause notice during the pe rdency of the adjudication proceedings, but the order-in-or g,inal dated 03.09.2025 has imposed the tax liabiliry of Rs.g6. 06/_. similar amount ofpenalty under Section 74(9) of the Centr I Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and, interest under Section I [r ol'the said Act amounting to Rs.51,352/- relatable to the pcr od Ocrober, 2022. The petitioner had been making correspond: r,;c with the GSTN to permit it to file an appeal without pre_c( rosit, as the outstanding tax dues had already been paid and no c: ;e of penalty could be made out. However, in that process, time :r filing the appeal expired. It is contended by the learned col rsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has good groundS ro t:xplain the delay. But, the petitioner may not be compelled to rr rkc the pre_ deposit of l\Yo against the penalty amount in le aloresaid crrcumstances. \ \
r 3
Leamed Senior Standing Counsel appearing for GSTN submits that there is no power with the GSTN to exempt the pre- deposit for filing the appeal
Leamed Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State Tax also submits rhat the pre-deposit is a prerequisite for filing the appeal. Whether the deposit of tax during the adjudication proceedings could relieve the petitioner of the liability of penalty is a matter to bc decided by the appellate authority only upon the appeal being filed with pre-deposit. The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim any excmption from making the pre-deposit. Leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader also submits that the petitioner may be allowed liberly to approach the appellate authority with an explanation for the delay within a stipulated period and take all such grounds of law and facts in its appeal.
In the lacts and circumstances noted above, since there is no exemption for any taxpayer from making pre-deposit while filing the appeal under the GST regime, whether the liability of 4 penalty or tax was rightly imposed or not would le the subject matter of appeal on merits, the same cannot be a .: ound to seek exemption fiom making the pre-deposit. Howe y rr', since the petitioner had been in correspondence with tir respondent authorities on this issue and has missed the cut olf , ate for filing the appeal, we grant liberty to the petitioner to ri e the appeal within a period of two weeks with statutory depo: i and a delay condonation application. The petitioner may take all ;r.rch grounds of law and facts in the memo of appeal as arc r, ailabte to it Needless to say, the appellate authority w,ould :onsider the question of delay sympathetically taking into account thc aforesaid facts and circumstances and ifhe is satislicr cn the poinl of delay, proceed to decide the appeal on r.nerits i accordance with law within a reasonable time, preferably, ,r ir.hin twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this ordc
The writ petition is accordingly disposed ot
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. I I I .K.MADHAVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //// G SECTION OFFICER To MP
The Goods and Services Tax Network (GSfN), Worldmark 1, Aerocity, lndira Gandhi lntemational Airport, New Delhi, India-1 10037. 2. The Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes), Mehdipatnam-ll Circle, Charminar Division, Hyderabad.
The Secretary to Government (Revenue) CT-ll, Commercial Taxes / State Tax Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
The Secretary (Finance), Ministry of Finance, Union of lndia, North Block, New Delhi-'l 10 001 .
One CC to SRI K. P. AMARNATH REDDY, Advocate IOPUC]
One CC to SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES, Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC toPUCI
Two CCs to SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, Special Government Pleader for State Tax, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] B. One CC to SRI N. BHUJANGA RAO, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia loPUcl
Two CD Copies ]i l
HIGH COURT DAT iD:0610212026 1 E i I ij ?r;r 0 t rl s ot I (il( :r, .-c '1 :. ..,. + ''t'--. ER | 1TC WP.NI r.3450 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE VII RIT PETITION WIl- {OUT COSTS \8ta\ar ! i I I I t I : I I
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.