Devi Enterprises vs. The State Of Telangana

WP/14733/2025HC TelanganaGSTCNR HBHC01028984202509 June 2025Bench: SUJOY PAUL,RENUKA YARA5 pages

For Petitioner: SRI D.KAVAL KUMAR, co u n se I fo r the Res pono" ""' :;1.3H?3Ro.?irTir#

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The petitioner, Devi Enterprises, represented by its Proprietor, Nagendra Kumar Surya, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 27.12.2024, bearing Ref.No. 2D361223053329G, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Hyder Nagar - II Circle, under Section 73 of the TGST & CGST Acts, 2017. The petitioner contended that the order was illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and passed without adhering to the procedure laid down in Section 61 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Rule 99 of the Telangana Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017. The writ petition was filed on 30.04.2025, significantly after the order was passed. The Court repeatedly questioned the petitioner's counsel regarding the considerable delay in filing the writ petition, but no satisfactory explanation was provided.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the unexplained and considerable delay in its filing. The petitioner failed to provide any justification or pleading to explain the belated filing of the writ petition, especially when the statutory period for filing an appeal had not been utilized. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Assistant Commissioner (CT), LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, which emphasizes the importance of timely filing of petitions. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay. No costs were awarded. All pending interlocutory applications were also closed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition, filed on 30.04.2025, challenging an order dated 27.12.2024, is maintainable due to the unexplained delay, particularly when the petitioner did not file an appeal within the stipulated time limit? (Question of law) The petitioner argued that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violated the procedural mandates of Section 61 of the TGST Act, 2017, and Rule 99 of the TGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner sought to declare this order void and suspend its operation. The respondents, represented by the State of Telangana and its officials, did not present any arguments on the merits of the case as the Court focused on the preliminary issue of delay. The petitioner's counsel failed to provide any justification or pleading explaining the delay in filing the writ petition, despite repeated queries from the Court.

Sections Cited

Section 73, Section 61, Rule 99

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[ 34461 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) NIONDAY, THE NINT|I DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION NO: 14733 OF 2025 Between: Devi Enterprises, Rep. by its Proprietor, Nagendra Kumar Surya, S/o Nandam Suryanarayana, Aged about 52 yrs, Occ- Business, Olo 6-184, Ground Floor, Bharathi Nilayam, S L N S Colony, [\i'leerpet, Ranga Reddy District, ...PETITIONER AND '1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad- 2. The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, CT Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3. The Assistant Commissioner, Hyder Nagar - ll Circle, Hyderabad Rural Division, Telangana. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stited in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in passing the order dt.27l'1212024 bearing Ref,No. 2D361223053329G under section 73 of the TGST & CGST Acts, 2017 against the petitioner which is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and without following the procedure laid down under Section 6'l of Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, rcad with Rule 99 of the Telangana Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 and consequently suspend the same lA NO: 'l OF 2025 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 of all further proceedings pursuant to the order dl.2l l12t2o24 bearing Ref.No. 2D361223053329G under section 73 ofthe TGST and GGST Acts,2017, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI D.KAVAL KUMAR co u n se I fo r the Res pono" ""' :;1.3H?3Ro.?irTir#

,r-

I t THE HON,BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION No.14733 of 2o25 OR.DER (Per the Hon'ble tlte Acttng Chief Justice Sujog Paut): Sri Dr. D. Kaval Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Swaroop Ootilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, for the respondents.

Heard on admissiolt.

The petitioner'challenges the order dated 27.12.2024. The Writ Petition is filed on 30.O4 .2025. 4. On more than three occasions, a specific question was raised by this Court regarding explanation in filing the petition after considerable long time. Sadly, no answer is forthcoming. In other words, despite repeated query, learned counsel for the petitioner has not taken us to any pleading which explains the delay. The petitioner has not f1led the writ petition within the stipulated time limit prescribed for preferring an appeal. In absence of showing any justifiabie reasons and pleadings for belatedly filing this petition, in the iight of judgment of Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CTf, LTU, Kakinada v. I t -)

2 Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limitedl, this Writ Petition cannot be entertained and is accordingly dismissed on the ground of delay. No costs lnterlocutory applications, if any pending, sha1l also stand closed M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRTJE COPY// kw- SECTION OFFICER To, 'l . One CC to SRI D.KAVAL KUMAR, Advocate. [OPUC]

One CC to SRI SWAROOP-OORILLA, SPL.G.P for State Tax. [OPUC]

Two CD Copies. BSK crP 3 A_ ' zozo {:o) G.s.T.L.3o5 (s.c.) I I

HIGH COURT DATED:0910612025 ORDER 1,1 2) -i i iil r/{ 9.. o - (,., \ 0- ,')' o \r- r' - \ a.) ', ?, 1 0 s[P 2025 WP.No.14733 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS f*

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.