M/S. Gowthami Enterprises vs. The Superintendent Of Central Tax
Original PDF →Facts
M/s. Gowthami Enterprises, represented by its sole proprietor, filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court. The petitioner challenged an order-in-original dated April 5, 2024, passed by the Superintendent of Central Tax under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, along with a summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated April 30, 2024. These orders imposed tax, penalty, and interest for the tax period 2018-2019. The petitioner contended that they became aware of the liability only upon receiving a demand from the authorities. During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel sought liberty to file an appeal against the order-in-original, acknowledging potential delay in approaching the appellate authority.
Held
The Court did not comment on the merits of the contentions raised by the parties. Instead, it granted the petitioner liberty to prefer an appeal against the order-in-original within two weeks, subject to statutory pre-deposit. The Court directed the learned appellate authority to consider the appeal sympathetically, taking into account that the petitioner had been pursuing the writ remedy before the High Court in the meantime. The petitioner was also granted liberty to raise all grounds in law and on facts before the appellate authority. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order-in-original dated 05.04.2024, passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, and the summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 30.04.2024, are void, arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner argued that they were unaware of the liability until contacted by the authorities, implying a lack of proper notice or opportunity to be heard, thus violating natural justice. They also contended that the imposition of tax, penalty, and interest without proper adherence to due process was unconstitutional. The respondents, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, submitted that the petitioner was at liberty to prefer an appeal against the order-in-original and DRC-07, taking all available grounds before the appellate authority.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD EI 1i !I I I j i AND WRIT PETITI No.274 of 2026 DATED: 21.01.2026 Between: IWs. Gowthami Enterprises ... Petitioner AND The Superintendent of Central Tax, Office of the Superintendent of Central Tax, Kapra CGST Range, 2nd floor, Room No.2 10, Elegant Edifice 3-4-118/2, NR Ramanthapur, Hyderabad - 500 013 & 3 others ... Respondents ORDER: Heard Ivtr. Mohammed Asrar Ahmed, leamed counsel representing Mr. D.Madhava Rao, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner through video conference and Mr. Dominic Femandes, leamed Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) appearing for respondent Nos.l to 3. 2- The writ petition has been preferred against the order-in-original dated 05.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act,2OL7, l $
2 along with the summary of the order in Form GST DRC - 07 dated 30.04.2024 for the tax period 2018-2019 imposing the tax, penalty and interest.
The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that it has come to know about the liability only upon receiving call from the authorities demanding the tax.
However, after some arguments, leamed counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the order-in-original. He submits that some delay might have been occurred in approaching the appellate authority and therefore, he may be directed to consider it sympathetically.
Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC submits that the petitioner was at liberty to prefer an appeal against the order-in-original and DRC - 07 taking all the grounds as are available in law and on facts before the appellate authority in respect of the subject tax period 6- However, upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, since the petitioner seeks liberty to prefer an appeal, we do not wish to comment on the merits of the contentions raised by the parties.
If the petitioner prefers an appeal within a period of trvo weeks with statutory pre-deposit, the learned appellate authority.would consider it in accordance with law also keeping into consideration that it has been pursuing the writ remedy before this Court in the meantime as well. The petitioner will be at liberty to take all the grounds in law and on facts before the appellate authority. t I
3
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. .K.BHAVANI SWAMY /// OFFICER \ To, t
The Superintendent of Central Tax, Office of the Superintendent of Central . T?I,_K?pra CGST Range, 2nd floor, Room No. 210, Elegant Edifice 3-4- ' 118/2, NR Ramanthapur, Hyderabad -500 013. 2. The commissioner of cer tral rax, Secunderabad CGST, commissionerate, GST Bhava, Basheerbagh, HyderibaO - sOO OO+
Ihe Assistant Commigdioner of Central Tax, Uppal CGST Division, Ramanthapur -,Sffi 0{3
The Secretary to Government of lndia, Ministry of Finance, Union of tndia, Revenue Department, North Block, Central cretariat, New Delhi 110 0O1. 5. One CC to SRl. D MADHAVA RAO, Advocate [OPUC]
One CC to SRl. DOMINIC FERNANDES (senior standing counselfor CBIC) IoPUCI
One CC to SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL oF INDIA [oPUCl
Two CD Copies DAN TKS -F6/ .
,/ HIGH COURT DATEDizl10112026 ORDER WP.No.274 of 2026 '\ r\E SfA {(ou 3 01 APR 2o26 P? 6, -b * * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @ul,r, ?-' u \
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.