Phanitha Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Phanitha Constructions, filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court challenging a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 30.01.2022, an impugned order dated 16.01.2025, and a recovery letter dated 08.08.2025. These were issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Medchal Division, and other revenue authorities. The petitioner sought to quash these documents or, in the alternative, a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit them to file a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, after condonation of delay. The petitioner also indicated having other grounds on merits to be raised. The revenue authorities did not oppose the petitioner's prayer to approach the appellate authority, but noted that the appeal might be delayed.
Held
The Court noted that the petitioner was inclined to avail the appeal remedy. It directed that if the petitioner prefers an appeal within a period of two weeks, along with the statutory deposit, the appellate authority would consider the same in accordance with the law. The Court disposed of the writ petition on this basis, without making any order as to costs. The specific grounds on merits that the petitioner wished to raise were not adjudicated upon by the High Court, as the matter was settled by allowing the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, before the appellate authority, and if so, whether the delay in filing such appeal should be condoned. Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that they were pursuing the writ remedy and should be allowed to approach the appellate authority. They sought directions for the appellate authority to condone any delay in filing the appeal. Revenue's argument: The counsel for the revenue authorities did not oppose the petitioner's prayer to approach the appellate authority but submitted that the appeal might be delayed.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER
TIIE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KTIMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE sRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN UIRIT PETITION No.29339 of 2025 ORDER: Heard Mr. Jai Kishan Solanki, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. pravalika, learned counsel representing Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Ms. Anjali Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent No.4. 2 The writ petition has been preferred with the following prayer "For the reasons stated in the accompanying Affidavit, the petitioner herein respectfully prays that this Hon,ble High Court mav be pleased to:- A. Issue a writ of Certiorari and/or aly other appropriate writ(s) or directions in the nature thereof setting aside and quashing the SCN dated 30.01.2022, Impugned order dated r6.o1.2o2s and recovery letter dated 08.08.2025 bearing DIN 2025O8S6ypO0O0OOBEFB (or) B. Issue a writ of ma,ndamus directing the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to file a statutory appeal u/s 107 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2077 alter condonation of delay, if so determined by this Hon,ble Court; i' I i
2 '} C. Issue any other order or direction that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to pass under the facts and circumstalces of the present case and for this act of kindness, the petitioner as are duty bound shall ever pray."
However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner -has other grounds on merits also to be raised' Therefore, he may be allowed liberty to approach the appellate authority. Th.e appellate authority may be directed to condone the delay, if any, in approaching it as the petitioner was also pursuing the writ remedY.
Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 does not oppose the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. However, she submits that the appeal may be delaYed.
Be that as it may, since the petitioner is inclined to avail
the appeal remedy. If he prefers an appeal within a period of two weeks with statutory deposit, the appellate authority would consider the same, in accordance with law.
3 i
The Writ Petition is, accordingiy, disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. .A.V.S.PRASAD E UTY REG IST //II s TION OFFICER I To, 1 2 Ilit:iq,.r", Commissioner of Centrat Tax, tVledchat uommtssionerate Telangana ion, Medchal 3 4 5 6 il,:?.t^T%'JH?s:il8?lt'filiX;HvdernasarRanse,MedcharDivision, The Commissioner, Central Tax l\,4edchal Commissionerate, Telangana. The Joint Secretary, Union Finance, Norih d.;;,k:Niil tsr"ifli_fl&?i,r_ment of Revenue, Ministry of One CC to SRt JAt KTSHAN SOLANKI, Advocate. tOpUCl 7 idt ta? to SRI DoMlNlc FERNANDES, (senior Standing counset for cBlc) One CC to tVs.ANJALt AGARWAL, Advocate. tOpUCl
Two CD Copies BSK Y/ot,
/ HIGH COURT DATED:1 411012025 ;:1,; : 1. ";. ,,. .-,.), . ,} ,i:- :-._ 1 ti [tT 2t?5 \ ORDER WP.No.29339 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS /o /.s ,t/ /zo ,/,{
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.