M/S. Genmedic Health Care Private Limited vs. The State Of Telangana

Held

The Court held that since the appeal was rejected on the grounds of delay, the Petitioner should prefer an appeal before the learned Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal as and when it is constituted, along with the pre-deposit. The Court directed the Petitioner to deposit 10% of the tax liability as assessed by the Assessing Officer with the Department within four weeks from the date of the order. The Petitioner was further directed to approach the Tribunal within three months from the date of its constitution/establishment. The Tribunal was instructed to decide the second appeal in accordance with law. Subject to the deposit of 10% of the tax liability, no coercive action would be taken against the Petitioner until the Tribunal's decision. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

M/s. Genmedic Health Care Private Limited (Petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 10.09.2025 passed by the Appellate Joint Commissioner (ST), Hyderabad Rural Division (Respondent No. 2). This order rejected the Petitioner's appeal against an order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Madhapur-7 Circle (Respondent No. 3). The rejection was on the grounds that the appeal was time-barred. The proceedings relate to the Financial Year 2018-2019. The Petitioner filed its appeal on 07.05.2025, which was beyond the three-month period from the communication of the order. The Petitioner claimed a bona fide impression that the appeal was filed within the limitation period and did not file a condonation of delay application. The appeal was heard on merits but ultimately rejected as time-barred.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the Petitioner's appeal by the Appellate Joint Commissioner (ST) as time-barred, without considering a condonation of delay application, is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and in violation of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and principles of natural justice? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the appeal was rejected due to a bona fide misconception regarding the limitation period and that the appeal was heard on merits before being rejected as time-barred. The Petitioner sought to set aside the order of the Appellate Joint Commissioner. Revenue's Contention: The Special Government Pleader for State Tax submitted that the appeal was filed beyond the period of three months, plus one month that could be condoned under Section 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Therefore, the appellate authority correctly rejected the appeal. The Revenue suggested the Petitioner approach the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal once constituted.