M/S Anita Packaging vs. Assistant Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Anita Packaging, represented by its proprietor, approached the High Court of Telangana through a writ petition. The petitioner sought to set aside an Order in Original and proceedings in Form GST DRC-07, along with a Show Cause Notice in Form DRC-01, issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Rajender Nagar-I. These were issued under Section 73 of the Act for the tax period 2019-20. The petitioner contended that these notices and orders were a nullity, issued in violation of the principles of natural justice and unsustainable on merits. The petitioner claimed to have learned about the impugned order only after engaging a new tax consultant, as the erstwhile consultant failed to inform them.
Held
The Court did not delve into the merits of the contentions raised by the parties. Instead, upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned order within a period of two weeks. This liberty was granted with the condition of making the statutory pre-deposit and filing a delay condonation application. The Court noted that the petitioner may take all grounds of law and fact in the memo of appeal. The appellate authority was directed to consider the question of delay sympathetically, taking into account the facts and circumstances presented, and if satisfied, proceed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. The writ petition was disposed of with this liberty, and no order as to costs was made.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned Order in Original and proceedings in Form GST DRC-07, along with the Show Cause Notice in Form DRC-01, issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) under Section 73 of the Act for the tax period 2019-20, are a nullity due to alleged violation of the principles of natural justice and being unsustainable on merits? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the notices and order were issued in violation of the principles of natural justice and were unsustainable on merits. They also stated that they came to know about the order only recently due to their erstwhile tax consultant's failure to inform them. Revenue's contention: The respondents, including the Assistant Commissioner (ST) and the State Tax Department, were represented. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for State Tax submitted that the petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned order, taking all available grounds.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following ORDER
-- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No.29059 OF 2026 (CNR No. HBHC0 | 0s92032026) Dated: 07.09.2026 Between: M./s. Anita Packaging, Rep. by its Proprietor Mr. Divij Agarwal, S/o. Sunil Kumar Agarwal ...Petitioner and Assistant Commissioner (ST), Rajendra Nagar-I, Saroornagar, Hyderabad and three others. ,.,Respondents ORDER: Heard Ms. Akruti Goyal, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. K. Sai Akarsh, leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader appearing for State Tax and Mr. D. Raghavendar Rao, leamed Senior Standing Counsel appearing for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC)
The Writ Petition has been preferred with the following prayer: "... to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other approPriate urit or order or direction set aside the Order in Original along with proceedings in Form CST DRC-07 vide Ref.No.ZD360824l037548 dated 25.08.2024 and Show Cause Notice along with Form DRC-o1 dated 14.06.2022 issued by the l'r Respondent under Section 73 of the Act for the tax period 2019-20 as being nullity on the ground that the impugned notices and orders are issued in violation ofprinciples of natural justice and also unsustainable on merits and pass such other order or 2 orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that its erstwhile tax consultant failed to inform about the impugned order and it has come to know about the same only when a new tax consultant was engaged.
However, after some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned order. She submits that some delay m ight have been occurred in approaching the appellate authority and therefore, the appellate authority may be directed to consider the appeal sympathetically.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for State 'Iax submits that the petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned order taking all the grounds as are available to it in law and on facts before the appellate authority in respect ofthe subject tax period.
However, upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, since the petitioner seeks liberty to prefer an appeal, we clo not wish to comment on the merits of the contentions raised by the parLies.
3 To 7. Therefore, we grant liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal within a period of two weeks with statutory pre-deposit and a delay condonation application. The petitioner may take all such grounds of Iaw and on facts in the memo of appeal as are available to it. Needless to say, the appetlate authority would consider the question of delay taking into account the aforesaid facts and circumstances and if it is satisfied on the point of delay, proceed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. . M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT EGIST R //// SECTI N OFFICER The Assistant Commissioner (ST),, Rajender Nagar-1, Saroonagar, Room No. 305, 3rd Floor, Hermitage Office Complex, Hill Fort Road, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad -500 004. 1
The Chief Secretary and Special Chief Secretary to covernment (FAC), State Tax Department, Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad.
The Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, Jeevan Deep Building, 3rd Floor, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-1 10 00'1 .
The Commissioner (GST), Central Board of lndirect Taxes and Customs, GST Policy Wing, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi.
One CC to Mr AKRUTI GOYAL, Advocate [OPUC]
One CC to SRI D.RAGHAVENDRA RAO (SR SC FOR CB|C) [OPUC]
One CC to SRI K.SAI AKARSH, AGP APPEARTNG FOR STATE TAX (oPUC)
One CC to SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUTY SOL|C|TOR GENERAL OF rNDrA (OPUC)
Two CD Copies SA TKS I II
) HIGH COURT DATED: 0710912026 ORDER WP.No.29059 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. -.4 ;i^17€ 2 I SIP 2026 \ ,..' o .r.,i, t -t- .t .; \_- \ laA z
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.