M/S. Peddi Lingamurthy And Sons vs. The Joint Commissioner

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court noted that the petitioner has an effective remedy of appeal against the impugned order-in-appeal. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the appellate authority on the grounds of delay, as it was submitted beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, including the condonable period of 90 + 30 days. The Court acknowledged the submission by the revenue that the petitioner has a remedy before the GST Appellate Tribunal within a stipulated window period. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioner to approach the GST Appellate Tribunal within the specified period, subject to statutory pre-deposit. No order as to costs was made.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Peddi Lingamurthy & Sons, challenged an order-in-original dated 29-12-2023 passed by the Superintendent, Karimnagar-Urban Range, for the tax period 2017-2018. They also challenged the rejection order dated 09-09-2025 passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Authority, Secunderabad-Hyderabad CBIC, which rejected their statutory appeal on grounds of delay. The petitioner contended that the order-in-original was violative of natural justice, passed without considering their reply, without granting a personal hearing, and was arbitrary, non-speaking, and unsustainable. The appeal was rejected mechanically on limitation. The petitioner sought quashing of both orders and a stay on recovery proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's statutory appeal by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) on grounds of delay, under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, was erroneous and mechanical, thereby violating principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the order-in-original passed by the Superintendent was arbitrary, non-speaking, and passed without affording a proper hearing or considering the petitioner's reply? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the order-in-original was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, as their reply was not considered and no personal hearing was granted. They further contended that the appellate authority mechanically rejected their appeal on limitation without proper consideration. Revenue's Arguments: The learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC submitted that the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of delay beyond the condonable period of 90 + 30 days. They also pointed out that the petitioner has an effective remedy of appeal before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal as per a circular dated 24.09.2025, for the period between 01.02.2026 and 30.06.2026.