Klr Industries Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central Tax

WP/605/2026HC TelanganaGSTCNR HBHC01077305202509 January 2026Bench: APARESH KUMAR SINGH,G.M. MOHIUDDIN7 pages

For Petitioner: M/s P.V.PRASAO ASSOCIATES, 999Jl.19!l9rlhe Responitent t{os.i & 2 : M/s DOMIN|C FERNANDES (SENIOR, STANDING COUNSEL FOR CB!C)For Respondent: SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUTY, SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

KLR Industries Limited (Petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging an order dated July 31, 2025, passed by the Joint Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals) (Respondent No. 1). The Petitioner had filed a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, against an order-in-original dated March 11, 2024. The appeal was dismissed at the acknowledgement stage due to delay. The Petitioner contended that the appeal was filed within 45 days, as per liberty granted by the High Court in a previous batch of writ petitions (W.P. No. 1154 of 2024 and batch) decided on January 2, 2025. The impugned order was issued in Form GST APL-02, whereas rejection of an appeal for delay should be in Form GST APL-04. The Petitioner argued that the dismissal was arbitrary and illegal.

Held

The Court held that the appeal was preferred within the 45-day window period granted by this Court in W.P. No. 1154 of 2024 and batch. Therefore, the appeal did not deserve to be rejected on the ground of delay. The Court found that the Petitioner should not be made to suffer for the inadvertence in not referring to the Court's judgment in the appeal memorandum. Consequently, the impugned rejection order dated July 31, 2025, communicated in Form GST APL-02, was set aside. The matter was remanded to the appellate authority to consider the appeal on merits in accordance with law. The Petitioner was directed to file an application, manually if online submission was not permissible, enclosing a copy of the judgment dated January 2, 2025, passed in W.P. No. 1154 of 2024 and batch. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated July 31, 2025, passed by the Joint Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals) in Form GST APL-02, rejecting the Petitioner's appeal on grounds of delay, is void, arbitrary, illegal, and violative of principles of natural justice and constitutional provisions (Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265), particularly when the appeal was filed within the 45-day period granted by this Court in W.P. No. 1154 of 2024 and batch. Petitioner's Arguments: - The appeal was filed within the 45-day period granted by this Court's order dated January 2, 2025, in W.P. No. 1154 of 2024 and batch, which directed that appeals filed within this period should not be dismissed on grounds of limitation. - The rejection of the appeal in Form GST APL-02, instead of Form GST APL-04, is procedurally incorrect. - The Petitioner should not suffer due to an inadvertent omission in not explicitly mentioning or enclosing the Court's judgment in the appeal memorandum. Revenue's Arguments: - The Petitioner did not mention or enclose the High Court's judgment from W.P. No. 1154 of 2024 and batch in the appeal memorandum, leading the appellate authority to reject it as time-barred. - The matter may be remanded for consideration on merits, with a direction to the Petitioner to file an application enclosing the relevant judgment.

Sections Cited

Section 107

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[ 34881 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAYOF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.ii. MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION NO:60s oF 2026 Between: KLR lnduskies Llmited, Sy. No.22211, ECIL Post, Cherlapally, Hyderabad - 500062. Represented by its Whole Tlme Direclo1, Shri K. Mjaya Gxmi neOOy, S/o. K. Laxma Beddy, Aged 65 years, Rlo 21-2618, Mission -Oompound, Shamshabad, K.V. Rangareddy, Telangana -5O1 21 8. .....PETMONER '1. Joint Commissioner of Central tax, (Appeals), 7th Floor, GST Bhavan, L.B. Stadium Road, Easheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500001. 2. Superintendent of Central Tax and Central Excise CGST Division, 3-4-11812 NR, 2nd Floor, Elegant Hyderabad - 500013. , lGpra Range, Uppal Edifice; Rarnanthapur, 3. Union of lndia, Rep by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance Govemment of lndia, 3rd Floor, Jeevan Deep, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110 001. IIESIIOIIIIr:IITE 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 a Writ of Mandamus declaring that impugned order in Form ApL-02 bearing .. - reference no. 2D3607250458144 dated 3147-2025 passed by the Respondeflt No. 1 under the provisions of CGST/TGST Ac( 2017 as being void, arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, violative of the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19(1Xg) and 265 of the Constitutkrn of lndia, and to consequently set aside the same. |.A"NO:1 OF 2026 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 operation of impugned order in Form ApL-02 bearing reference no. Z,D36O725O458144 dated 31-07-2025 passed by the Respondent No.1 . Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s P.V.PRASAO ASSOCIATES 999Jl.19!l9rlhe Responitent t{os.i & 2 : M/s DOMIN|C FERNANDES (SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR CB!C) Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

The Court made the following ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR TTIE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TITE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No.605 of 2026 DATED : 09.01.2026 Between: KLR Industries Limited, rep., by its Whole Time Director Sri K. Vrjaya Laxmi Reddy, Sy:No.222 / l, ECIL Post, Cherlapally, Hyderabad. Petitioner AND Joint Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals), 7ft floor, GST Bhavan, L.B. Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hydeabad and 2 others. ... Respondents ORDER: sri P. venkata Prasad, learned counsel represents tws. p.v. prasad Associates, for the petitioner. sri Dominic Fernandes, learned senior Standing counsel for the Central Board of lndirect Taxes and Customs appears for respondent Nos.l and2. Sri B. Mukherjee, learned counsel representing Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appears for respondent No.3. 7 .", @

2 2- Petitioner preferred the statutory appeal under Section r07 of the central Goods and Service Tax Act,2017, however, after a deray against the order-in-original dated fi.03.2024 before respondent No.l _ Joint Commission, Central Tax (Appeals).

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the stage of acknowledgement of submission of appeal, the appeal itself has been dismissed on 31.07.2025 indicating the reason of rejection of delay in submission of appeal. Rejection of appeat is to be contained in FORM GST APL 04, instead the impugned order was issued in FORM GST ApL 02' [t is submitted that the petitioner had preferred the appeal within the period of,45 days as per the liberty granted by this Court in a barch of rvrit petitions led by w.P.No.ll54 of 2024 and batch dated 02.01 .2025. para l2l of the said order has been referred to, which reads as under: "These writ petitions are accordingly disposed of by reserving liberty to the petitioners to avail the iemedy of statutory appeal. If the appeal is preferred by the petitioners within a5 days !"9." the appellate authority, the said authority shafl consider and decide the appeal on merits and it shall not be tlrrown overboard on the ground of limitation. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the cases. There shall be no order as to costs. Misceflaneous petitions pending, if any, shalr stand closed.,,

Admittedly, the memorandum of appeal did not mention or enclose the aforesaid judgment of this Court. Therefore, the appellate authority may have dismissed it. He submits that since the appeal was filed within the period of 45 days as per order dated 02.01.2025 of this Court, the appellate authority may be directed to consider the appeal on merits in accordance with law.

Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the CGST has also reiterated the statement that the petitioner did not mention or enclose the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.No.l 154 of 2024 and batch. [t seems that the appellate authority therefore rejected it as time barred. He, however, submits that the matter may be remanded in the aforesaid circumstances to be considered on merits with a direction to the petitioner to file an application enclosing the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.ll54 of 2024 and batch so that the appellate authority could consider the question of delay in the light of the direction passed in the said batch of cases.

Having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and since the appeal was preferred within the window period of 45 days granted by this Court in W.P.No.1154 of 2024 and batch, the appeal did not deserve to be rejected on delay. The petitioner may not be allowed 1 \

4 to suffer for the inadvertence in not referring to the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.l 154 of 2024 and batch, as such, we feel inclined to set asidc the impugned rejection order dated 31.07.2025 which has been communicated in FORM GST APL 02. Petitioner's writ petition being W.p.No.l564g of 2024 was also part of the batch of the writ petitions decided by this Court vide judgment dated, 02.01.2025. Therefore, the impugned rejection order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the appellate authority to consider it in accordancc rvith law. Petitioner should file an application rnanually. if not permissible online, enclosing the copy of judgment dated 02.01.2025 passed in W.P.No.l 154 of 2024 and batch. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Misccllaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. SO/.K.MADHAVI ISTANT REGISTRAR //// SECTION OFFICER

The Joint Commissioner of Central tax, (Appeal Floor, GST Bhavan, L.B. Stadium Road, Basheerb Hyderabad - agh, I Tax

The Superintendent of Centra and Central se, Kapra Range, Uppal CGST Division, 3-4-118[2 NR,2nd Floor, Elegant Edifice, Ramanthapur, Hydera bad - 500013. 7 To SA PMK 1

The Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance Government of lndia, 3rd Floor, Jeevan Deep, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110 001. 4. One CC to M/s. P.V.PRASAD ASSOCTATES, Advocate [OpUC]

One CC to M/s DOMIN|C FERNANDES (SEN|OR STANb|NG COUNSEL FOR CB|C) ADVOCATE IOPUC]

One CC to SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUry SOLICITOR GENERAL OF lNDlA, Advocate (OPUC)

Two CD Copies hL

HIGH COURT DATED:0910112026 ORII=l-il WP.No.605 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. 3 10 tEB zozn (;) SIA * * { \

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.