M/S.Sri Sai Electricals vs. Assistant Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Sri Sai Electricals, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 12.03.2026 passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad. This order rejected the petitioner's appeal at the admission stage for the period 2018-19. The rejection was on the grounds of delay and being beyond the prescribed limitation period under Sections 107(1) and 107(4) of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the appellate authority failed to follow the directions of this Court in a previous batch of writ petitions, including W.P. No. 1154 of 2024, decided on 02.01.2025. In those prior petitions, the Court had reserved liberty for petitioners to file appeals within 45 days and directed appellate authorities to decide them on merits, not on limitation, considering COVID-related delays.
Held
The Court held that the rejection of the petitioner's appeal on the ground of limitation was not proper in the eye of law. The reasoning was that the appeal was preferred within the period of 45 days from the date of the judgment in W.P. No. 1154 of 2024 and batch, dated 02.01.2025. This period was granted by the Court in its previous order, which also directed appellate authorities to consider appeals on merits and not dismiss them on limitation grounds, especially considering COVID-related delays. The ratio decidendi is that appellate authorities must strictly follow the directions of the High Court regarding the period for filing appeals and the consideration of merits, even if the appeal is filed beyond the statutory period but within the extended period granted by the Court. The impugned order of the appellate authority dated 12.03.2026 was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the appellate authority for a fresh decision in accordance with law.
Key Issues
1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's appeal by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) on the grounds of limitation was proper in law, given the directions issued by this Court in W.P. No. 1154 of 2024 and batch on 02.01.2025? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the appeal was filed within the 45-day period granted by this Court in its previous order dated 02.01.2025. The appellate authority erred by rejecting the appeal on limitation grounds, thereby failing to adhere to the specific directions of this Court. The petitioner relied on the observations made in paragraph 121 of the judgment in W.P. No. 1154 of 2024 and batch. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, represented by the learned Special Government Pleader, did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's contention regarding the adherence to the previous court order. The judgment notes that the court considered the submissions of both parties on this limited point.
Sections Cited
Section 107(1), Section 107(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER
--:E=-@g!t IN THE TIIGH COURT FOR THE STATE O[- TELANGANA AT HYDERABAI) THE ON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUS'I'ICE G.M. MOHITID DIN WRIT PETITION No. I 851 2 of 2026 Dated: 17.06.2026 Between: M/s. Sri Sai Electricals . . . Petitioner and Assistant Cornmissioner (S1'). Vengalarao Nagar C ircle-2. Flyderabad, and 4 others. ...Respondcnts ORDER: Leamed counsel Sri S.Suri Babu appears tbr the petitioner through video conferenc ing Sri Swaroop Ooritta, learned Special Government Pleader' appears lor the resPondcnts
Heard the learned counsel for the parties
A batch ol writ petitions led b1 W P.No. 1 l 54 ol 2024 u'ere decided b-v a Coorclinate Bench of this coltrt vidc.iudgment dated
!- 2 02.01.2025. including W.p.No.30l42 of 2024 pre lerrert by rhc present petitioner assailing the shou cause notice issued lor tle financial year 2018- I9. as being barred b1 Iimitation. The learned crordinate Bench of' this court held in tavour of the revenue on the pornt of limitation taking into account the COVID delal.s and the order passed in ,guo motu W.P (Cir. il) No.3 ol'2020. While disposing of the w.rit petitions, liberty uas reserved rvith the pctitionr,rs to avail the rernedy of trppeal ivithin 45 days belore the appcllate authority. rvho uas directed to consider and decide the appeal on rnerits and not to throu it on the gr.ound ol Iirritation. 1'he pctitioner. * ho had sufl.ered tt e ad.judication proceedings 'ide Fo.r (isr I)RC-07, dated 2g.04.20r4. preferred an appeal on 15.02.2025 i.e.. belbre rhe expiry of 45 dals per.iod. Though the petitioner took thc ground in its r:emo of apreal about thc observations of' the court at paragraph l2l of thr judgment in W P.No.l154 ol 2024 and barch, dated 02.01.2025. brrr the appellate authoritl, clismissed it on the ground ofdelal.and as being beyond the prescribed period ol' Iirritatiorr prorided under Secri(,ns lt)7(l) and 107(4) o1'the lelangana (ioods and Services T.ax Act. 20lT lCentral Goods and Services l'ax r\ct.2017. I-he petitioner has assailed the said order ol' the appellatc authorit\ dated 12.03.2026 in the present w.ril proceedines.
-*--:!EE5' 3
We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties on this limited point
In the lacts and circuurstances taken note above. w,e are of the view that the rejection of appeal on the ground ol lirnitation lras not proper in the eye of law, as the appeal uas pret'crred within the period of 45 days from the date of the judgment datcd 02.0 I .2025 in W.P.No. I I 54 of 2024 and batch
Accordingly, the irnpugned order in appeal dated 12.03.2026 is set aside and the matter is restored to the tjle of the appellate authoritl' lbr taking a fresh decision in accordance u ith lau
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending. il any, shall stand closed. . B.G. VYJAYANTHI ASSI ANT REGISTRAR //// SE ION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 5 Assistant Commissioner (ST), Vengalarao Nagar Ctcle-2' Hyderabad' Assistant Commissioner (ENFT), Enforcement, HOD, Hyderabad' Deputy Commissioner (ST), - 5, Errforcement Wing 2, Hyderabad' Appelllte Deputy Commissioner (ST), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad' iir! erin"ipai secretary, Revenue Department (commercial raxes), The State of Telangana, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad. One CC to SRI S. SURI BABU, Advocate IOPUC] iwo CCs to SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPL. GP FOR STATE TAX, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] Two CD Copies BN TKS b 7 8
/ HIGH COURT DATED: 1710612026 ORDER 2 31 JuLt$& S tr r, s'ArE o e A 1 )) WP.No.18512 o12026 ,.!,, DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I t t 0l \1
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.