M/S. Gowthami Enterprises vs. The Superintendent Of Central Tax

Original PDF →
WP/202/2026HC TelanganaGSTCNR HBHC01064894202521 January 2026Bench: APARESH KUMAR SINGH,G.M. MOHIUDDIN6 pages
For Respondent: SRI N. BHUJANGA RAO ', DY.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

M/s. Gowthami Enterprises, the petitioner, filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court challenging an order-in-original dated December 15, 2023, and a summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated December 30, 2023. These orders were passed by the Superintendent of Central Tax (Respondent No. 1) under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, imposing tax, penalty, and interest for the tax period 2017-2018. 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 withdraw the writ petition to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority, acknowledging potential delay in approaching the statutory appellate forum.

Held

The Court, after hearing both parties, did not comment on the merits of the contentions raised. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to prefer an appeal against the order-in-original within a period of two weeks, subject to making the statutory pre-deposit. The Court directed the learned appellate authority to consider the appeal in accordance with law, taking into account that the petitioner had been pursuing the writ remedy before the High Court. 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 this liberty, and no order as to costs was made.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to prefer an appeal against the order-in-original and the summary of the order, despite potential delay in approaching the appellate authority, considering they pursued writ remedy. The petitioner argued that they were seeking to challenge the order-in-original and the DRC-07, and that there might have been some delay in approaching the appellate authority. They requested the Court to direct the appellate authority to consider their appeal sympathetically. 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 legal and factual grounds before the appellate authority for the subject tax period.

Sections Cited

Section 73

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[ 3488 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION NO: 202 OF 2026 Between: lVl/s. GoMhami Enterprises, Rep. by its sole proprietor, Sri. Ramesh chowdary Boyapati, S/o. Ramaiah Boyapati, Aged about 37 years, Rl/o. Matix Majestic, B-Block, G-6 rnshali Garden, Yapral, Alwal, Medchal-Malkajgiri, Telangana - 5oo 087' ...PETrroNER AND '1 . The Superintendent of Central Tax, Office of the Superintendent of Central Tax, Kapra CGST Range,2nd floor, Room No.210, Elegant Edifice 3-4- I 18/2, NR Ramanthapur, Hyderabad 500 01 3. 2. The Commissioner of Central Tax, Secunderabad CGST, Commissionerate, GST Bhava, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500 004. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Uppal CGST Division, Ramanthapur- 500 013. 4. Union of lndia, Rep. by the Secretary to Government of lndia, tVlinistry of Finance, Revenue Department, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi 1 10 001. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of tvlandamus declaring the order in original dt. 15.12.2023 vide OC. No. 891 of 2023 vide DlN. 2O231256YOOO00OOA59A issued by the 1'r Respondent under the provisions of CGST/TGST Act, 2017 as being void, arbitrary, illegal, against the principles of natural justice, apart from being violative of Article 14, 1 9(1 )(g) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently, set aside the order in original dt. 15.12.2023 vide OC. No. 891 of 2023 vide DlN. 2O231256YOO00000A59A, passed by the Respondent No. 't IANO:1 oF2025 petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit. filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay the operation of the order in original dl. 15.12.2023 vide oc. No. 891 of 2023vide DlN.20231256YO000000A59A, passed bythe Respondent No 1 Counsel for ttre Petitioner: SRI MOHAMMED ASRAR AHMED REP Ms. D. MADHAVA RAO Counsel for ttre Respondent Nos. 1to3: SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES (senior standing counsel for CBIC) Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI N. BHUJANGA RAO ' DY.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

The Court made the following: ORDER

IN THE HTGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF'TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD H BLE E AP INGH EHO WRIT PETITION No.202 of 2026 DATED: 21.01.2026 Between: M/s. Gowthami EnterPrises Petitioner AND The Superintendent of Central Tax, Offlce of the Superintendent of Central Tax, Kapra CGST Range, 2nd floor, Room No.210, Elegant Edifice 3-4-ll8l2, NR Ramanthapur, Hyderabad - 500 013 & 3 others Respondents OIIDER: Heard Mr. Mohammed Asrar Ahmed, learned counsel representing Mr. D.Madhava Rao, leamed counsel, appearing for the petitioner thror.rgh video colference and Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel fbr Central Board of lndirect Taxes and Custorns (CBIC) appearing for respondent Nos.l to 3. 2. The writ petition has been preferred against the order-in-original dated AND 15.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act,2017,

2 along with the iummary of the order in Form GST DRC - 07 dated 30.12.2023 for the tax period 201't-2018 imposing the tax, penalty and interest.

3.

The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that it has come to knorv about the liability only upon receiving call frorn the authorities dernanding the tax.

4.

I{owever, after some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks libert.v- to the petitionr:r to prefer an appeal against the order-in-original. He submits that some delay might have becn occurred in approaching the appellate authority and therefore, he mrly be directed to consider it sympathetically.

5.

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 :rvailable in larv and on facts before the appellate authority in rcspect of the subject tax lleriod

6.

However:, upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, since the petitioner seeks liberty 16, prel'cr an appeal, we do not wish- to comment on the merits of the contentions raised by the parties

7.

If the pr:titioncr prel'crs an appeal within a period of two weeks with statutory pre-deposit, the learned appellate authority rvould consider it in accordance with lau, also keeping into consideration that it has bcen pursuing the writ remedy before this Court in the meantirne as rvcll. The petitioner will be at liberty to take all the grounds in law and on fzrcts before the appellate authority.

J

8.

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. .M. OSMAN ASSISTANT TRAR /// SECTION OFFICER To,,.

1.

The Superintendent of Central.Tax, Office of the Superintenden!o.l-.Central Tax, Kdpra CGST Range,2nd floor, Room No.210, Elegant Edifice 3-4- 11812, NR Ramanthapur, Hyderabad 500 013. 2. The Commissioner of Central Tax, Secunderabad CGST, Commissionerate, GST Bhava, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500 004. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Uppal CGST Division, , Ramanthapur- 500 013. 4, The Secrdtary, Union of lndia, Government of lndia, Ministry.of.Finance, Revenue Dep-artment, North Block, Central Secrelariat, New Delhi 1 10 001 .

5.

One CC to SRt. D. TMADHAVA RAO, Advocate [OPUC]

6.

One CC to SRl. DOIVIINIC FERNANDES (senior standing counsel for CBIC) loPUCl T. bne Cb to Snt. N. BHUJANGA RAO, DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF rNDrAloPUCl

8.

Two CD Copies Btu BS Pvra.

HIGH COURT DATED:21 10112026 ORDER WP.No.202 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS s THE t ) (- 1 ', Fii'nlfr t d. * rot>t'-'t' ,

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.