M/S. Synergy Foods And Beverages vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Synergy Foods and Beverages, had its GST registration cancelled effective December 31, 2023, by an order dated September 13, 2024, issued under Rule 22(3) of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to furnish returns for the prescribed period, contravening Section 29(2)(c) of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Instead of seeking revocation of cancellation from the proper authority within the prescribed or extended time under Rule 23(1), the petitioner filed a belated appeal, which was rejected by an order dated September 29, 2025. The petitioner approached the High Court, seeking to set aside the appeal dismissal order and the earlier cancellation notice and order, and to restore its GST registration. The petitioner claimed there were no outstanding dues and sought to explain the delay due to illness, supported by medical certificates.
Held
The Court noted that the petitioner, instead of approaching the proper officer or the next higher officer in terms of Rule 23(1) of the Rules, had preferred a belated appeal. The time limit for approaching the Commissioner of Taxes also appeared to have expired. However, since the petitioner expressed an inclination to approach the competent authority for revocation of cancellation of its registration in terms of Rule 23(1) of the Rules, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to do so within two weeks from the date of the order. The Court directed that if such an application is filed, the competent authority, in terms of Rule 23(2) of the Rules, would consider the petitioner's request in accordance with law. It was also stated that the petitioner would be required to pay any outstanding tax dues against it. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.
Key Issues
1. Whether the action of the third respondent in issuing the appeal dismissal order dated 29.09.2025, instead of allowing the appeal and disposing of it on merits, is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the GST Act, 2017? 2. Whether the inaction of the first respondent in not deciding the application dated 22.09.2025 is arbitrary, illegal, without authority of law, and violative of the Principles of Natural Justice and Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, and 265 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the appeal dismissal order was arbitrary and illegal, as they had sought to explain the delay in filing the appeal due to illness, supported by medical certificates. They also argued that there were no outstanding dues. Respondents' arguments: The Special Government Pleader for State Tax submitted that the appeal was rejected on grounds of delay. He also pointed out the time limit prescribed under Rule 23(1) of the Rules for approaching the proper officer and that any request for revocation would require deposit of outstanding dues under Rule 23(2).
Sections Cited
Section 29(2)(c), Rule 22(3), Rule 23(1), Rule 23(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the l'ollowing: ORDER I
__-l_ THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No.3O37l of 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri V.Veercsham, iearned counsel lor the pctitioner and Sri Srvaroop Oorilla, Iearned Specia'l Governmcnt Pleader for State Tax, appearing for the rcspor-rde nts.
The petitioner's GST registration u,as cancelled u,ith effect from 31 .12.2023 by the order dated 13.09.2024 (Annexurc P.4) in trorm GST REG-19 issued under Rule 22(3) ol thc Telangana Goods and Services Ta-x Rr-rles, 20 17 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Rules"), on the ground that the petitioner had failed to furnish the returns for the prescribed period in contravention of the provisions of Section '29(21(cl of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax AcL, 2Ol7 3. 1'he petitioner, instead of preferring an application lor I revocatiorr of cancellation of its registration before the same
authoritv \\,ithin the prescribcd time or the highor authorit-y rvithin the extendcd period ol time in terms of Rule 23(1) of the Rr-rles. ohosc to prefer a belated appeal, u'hich has been rejected bv tl-re impugned order dated 29.09.202i. 4. l,earnecl counscl lor thc petitioner submit: that thr:re are no oul.standing dues. The petitioner, therefore, has been compellecl t.o approach this Court. Thc pctiticner had sought to e;iplain thc dela-r' grounds of illness lx otl enclosing tlre mcdical certilicates u.ith the mem,r of appeal in appeal Form CST APL-O1. 5. Learned Special (]overnment Pleader for State Tax appeerring lirr tl-rc respondents submits that the appeal has been rejectcd on grounds ol delay. [t is not cleetr from the pleadings as 1o \\'hethe r there are oul.standing dr,res against the petitioner u'hich, in an,\' case, has to be deposited before an_v s;uch request is to bc cntertaint:d by the competent alrthority ulldcr Rule 23(21 of the Rules. He also points our to the time limit prescribed under Rule 23( 1) of the Rules for approachir.rg the prol)er officer.
--_.-.- However, he submits that this Court may pass appropriate orders as may deem fit in the facts ol the case.
Having considered tl-rc submissions of learned counsel for thc parties, it appears that the petitior-rer, instead of approaching the proper officer or the next higl'rer ollicer in terms of Rule 23(1) of the Rules, preferred an appeal w,hich ',,r,as belated. The time iimit lor approaching 7 . Be that as it may, since the petitioner is inclined to approach the competent authority in terms of Rulc 23(i)ol the Rules, libert_y is granted to the petitioner to do so for revocation of caLncellation of its registration u.ithin a period of tr.l'o u,eeks from today. In case such an application is filed, tl-re competent authority in terms of Rule 23(2) of the u,ith lan,. Needlcss to sav that the petitioner would be required to pa), any outstanding tax dues which are due against it. the Commissioner ol Ta-xes also appears to have crossed. Rules u,ould consider the petitioner's request in accordance
I E l B. The u,ri, petition IS accordingl)I disposed of. There shall be no orrlcr as to costs. Miscellancous applications pending. if rtnv, shall stand closcrl Itl ts OSMAN ALI BAIG A 'r-ANT REGIS t- //' CTION C)FFICER
The Deputy Stat€) Tax Officer, Hydernagar 1 Circle, H era bad Rural Division,3rd Floc,r, North Wing. Gaganvihar Building. Opp Gandhi Bhavan. Nampally, Hyderabad-500 00'1 The Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Hyderabad Rural Division, 6th Floor, Gaganvihar Building, Opp Gandhi Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad-500 001 The Appellate Joint Commissioner, Hyderabad Rural Division, 5th Floor, C.T Complex, Nampaily, Hyderabad- 500 004 The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department (Commercial Tax), State of Telangana, Secretariat Complex, Hyderabad, Telangana One CC to SRI V. VEERESHAM, Advocate. [OPUC] One CC to SRI S\tVAROOP OORILLA, SPL.G.P for State Tax. [OPUC] Two CD Copies. BSK BS * t To, ( 2 3 4 6 7 4 7 q, W a *
HIGH COURT ; DATED:08/1012025 ; onoen * * s il * .* i t t 1 Ht S 14; ./)FSprl CH [ 1 Nti'J tu € zo.\ WP.No.30371 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS i t ( { \ tr 1i nL'l 4 // 4, !-/ -{ I
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.