M/S Sri Sai Communications vs. The Superintendent Of Central Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Sri Sai Communications, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice, an order under Section 73 of the GST Act, and an order in appeal, all pertaining to the tax period 2019-20. The appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority on grounds of limitation, as it was filed beyond the prescribed period. The petitioner argued that a communication dated 09.12.2024 to the Superintendent of Central Tax indicated that required documents would show no tax liability due to a debit note for June 2019 not being considered while filing GSTR-3B for FY 2019-20, which reduced Input Tax Credit (ITC) in GSTR-9. This crucial fact could not be presented to the appellate authority due to the dismissal on limitation grounds.
Held
The Court held that the point regarding infirmity in the adjudication proceedings was raised after the order-in-appeal was passed, rejecting the appeal on limitation. However, the petitioner's communication dated 09.12.2024 to the Proper Officer, asserting non-liability due to the reduction of ITC in GSTR-9, had not been dealt with. Given that the appeal was rejected on a delay of only four days, the Court deemed it proper to allow the petitioner to take this additional plea before the appellate authority to explain the delay and to argue the ground of non-liability. The reasoning was that the communication indicated a potential issue with the demand itself, which was not considered by the appellate authority due to the dismissal on limitation. The ratio is that where an appeal is dismissed on limitation and a subsequent communication suggests a substantive ground for non-liability that was not considered, the appellate authority may be directed to consider such grounds to explain the delay and decide the appeal on merits. The impugned order-in-appeal was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the appellate authority for fresh consideration, with liberty to the petitioner to explain the delay and present the additional grounds.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal before the appellate authority was barred by limitation under Section 107 of the GST Act, considering the communication dated 09.12.2024 to the Superintendent of Central Tax regarding the tax liability for the period 2019-20? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on Section 107 of the GST Act). Petitioner's Arguments: - The appeal was dismissed on limitation, but the communication dated 09.12.2024, sent before approaching the appellate authority, indicated that the petitioner was not liable for the demand of Rs. 4,53,510/- due to an error in considering a debit note and its impact on ITC in GSTR-9. - If this communication was considered, the appeal might not be time-barred, as it was filed only four days after the expiry of the condonable period. - The matter should be remanded to the appellate authority to consider this issue afresh, citing a High Court decision in W.P.No.17241 of 2026 where a similar situation arose. Respondents' Arguments: - The appeal was dismissed on limitation, being only four days beyond the four-month period. - The petitioner has a remedy of appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) under Section 112 with pre-deposit and a delay condonation application. - However, if the Court directs, the petitioner's additional ground regarding the communication to the Proper Officer could be taken before the appellate authority to explain the delay. - The communication dated 09.12.2024 does not appear to be a rectification application with proof of service.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 107, Section 112
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER
IN THE I{IGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY WRIT PE'I.ITION No.30540 O\'2026 (CNR No.l'lBHC0 I 0610372026) Dated:16.09.2026 Bet$'ecn: M/s. Sri Sai Com munications, Rcpresented by its Managing Partner, Mr. Palle Srinivas ... Petitioner And The Superintendent of Central Tax, Karimnagar Urban Range and anothcr ...Respondents ORDER IIeard Mr. Srinarayan Toshniwal, lealned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Dorninic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel lor Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), appearing for the respondents 2. 'l'he petitioner has approached this Court against the order-in-appeal dated 28.11.2025 pertaining to the tax period 2019-20 arising out of the order-in-origina I dated 14.08.2024 and the summary of the order in Form GS I DRC-07 datcd 26.08.2024 in a proceeding under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Acr, 201 7 (for short, .the Act,). Apart
from the order-in-appeal, both the show-cause notice dated 28.05.2024 and the summary of the show-cause notice in Form GS'I' DRC-01 datcd 12.08.2024. attachment to Form GST DRC-01 datcd 28.05.2024. the order- in-original dated 14.08.2024 and the summary ol the order in Forrn GST DRC-07 dated 26.08.2024, are also assailed ir.r thc presenr Writ Petition
The appeal ',vas rejected on the ground ol Iimitation having been flled after three months plus one monrh condonabJe period. In the present Writ Petition, apart lrorn the plea relating to belated scrr icc o1- surnrnary' of shovr-cause notice in Form GST DI{C-01 dated 12.08.202.1. to r,r,hioh the petitioner could not furnish any leply belore the order'-in-origina I was passed on 14.08.2024, the pctitioncr has also tal<en a plca that a cornrrrun icatiort r.,u'as made on 09.1 2.2024 to thc S uperinter-rdcnt, (-'entral Excise and Service l ax, Kalirnnagar Central GS-l' (Urban) Range, to the effect that the reqr.riled documents lbl the tax period 20 l9-20 lr'ould shorv that it is not liable to pay the dernand of CGST and SGS f to the tune ol Rs.4,53,5 l0/- as though it has not taken into considerarion the debit notc for the month of June. 2019, whilc filing GSTR-3hl for thc Financial Year 2019-20 and as a result. r'educed the Input l'ax Credit (l-l(--) fiorn the rvhole ITC in the GSTR-9
3
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the said fact was taken note of, there was no tax liability upon the petitioner as adjudicated in the impugned order-in-original. This fact could not be brought to the notice of the proper authority and could not be raised before the appellate authority since the appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay. He further submits that if the communication dated 09j2.2024 is taken into account, the appeal may not be time barred as it was filed only four days after the expiry of three months plus one month condonable period. He further submits that therefore the matter may be remanded to the appellate authority to consider this issue afresh. He refers to a decision rendered by this Court in W.P.No.1724l of 2026 dated 15.06.2026, wherein the pendency of a rectification application was taken into account in a case where the appeal was dismissed on the ground of time barred and the petitioner therein had not been able to raise such plea in the delay condonation application. It is further submitted that the facts in the present case are similar to the said case, as the petitioner herein, before approaching the appellate authority, had also approached the Proper Officer through a communication for dropping the demand. Therefore, if the appeal is reheard and decided on merits, this issue can be properly appreciated.
r1
Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC submits that the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of limitation though only four days beyond the four months period provided under Section 107(1) and (4) of the Act. The petitioner has a remedy of going in appeal before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) under Section 112 of the Act with sratutory pre-deposit and a delay condonation application. However, if this Court so directs, the petitioner's additional ground of having moved the Proper Otficer through communication dated 09.12.2024 for dropping of the demand may be taken before the appellate authority to explain the delaf if any tn approaching the said appellate authority. However. he submits that the communication dated 09.12.2024 does not appear to be a rectification application with any proof of service.
We have considered the submissions of the leamed counsel for the parlies. It appears that the point as regards infirmity in the adjudication proceedings has been taken up after the order-in-appeal was passed rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation. It however appears that the petitioner took a plea before the Proper Officer vide communication dated 09.12.2024 to show that because of reducing the ITC tiom the whole ITC in the annual return GSTR-9 lor the Financial Year 2019-20. the petitioner will not be liable to pay the demand as per the adjudication order. It further appears that the said communicarion has not been dealt with 5 7 . In these circumstances, we deem it proper to allow the petitioner to take this additional plea before the appellate authority to explain the delay and also the ground that it is not liable to pay the tax as per the order-in- original due to reduction of ITC shown in the annual GSTR-9 retums. The appeal has been rejected on the ground ofdelay of only four days.
Therefore, the impugned order-in-appeal dated 2g.i1.2025 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the appellate authority for consideration afresh. The petitioner is granted liberty to explain the delay by taking the aforesaid additional grounds. In case, the appellate authority is satisfied on the point of delay, it may proceed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. 9 The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed //// K.V.O,NARSI BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I\/- SEC N OFFICER
The Superintendent of Central Tax, Karimnagar Urban Range, Karimnagar CGST division, Medchal Commissionerate, 2nd Floor, H. No. 8-7-29611, Manikanta Complex, Hanuman Nagar, Karimnagar, Telangana - 505001
The Commissroner of Customs and Central Tax, Appeals-ll Hyderabad Commissionerate, Th Floor, GST Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, Telangana 500004
One CC to SRl. SRINARAYAN TOSHNIWAL, Advocate IOPUCI
One CC to SRl. DOMINIC FERNANDES, (senior standing counsel for CBIC) Advocate [OPUC] To,
PSR GJP
Two CD Copies .-*
HIGH COURT DATED: 1610912026 ORDER WP.No.30540 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS. ?- '-':.:-:- -. -i -if. 5 a4;. :--.- , , i', ..\ 11" " "--'.r 0 ,iEF 2ni ;r;l t' -,t il ..,',,,! S r, -.',t' ' : ,':./ .- .,',. ',. l:, $ D4 I >e n )e
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.