M/ S. Devi Steel Traders vs. The State Of Telangana

Held

The Court did not delve into the merits of the case. Instead, it granted the petitioner liberty to approach the appellate authority within two weeks with a delay condonation application and statutory pre-deposit. The Court directed that the appellate authority would consider the question of delay sympathetically if satisfied with the reasons provided in the delay condonation application, and thereafter, decide the case on merits. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's plea that they were not served with a show-cause notice and were unaware of the proceedings, and that the order was uploaded only on the GSTIN portal. The writ petition was disposed of with this liberty granted to the petitioner.

Facts

M/s. Devi Steel Traders (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging proceedings issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) under Section 79 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017. The impugned order, dated 26.09.2026, demanded tax, interest, and penalty amounting to Rs. 6,44,827/- for FY 2017-18. The petitioner claimed they were unaware of the proceedings until their bank account was frozen, alleging non-compliance with due procedure, including lack of a show-cause notice and the order being uploaded only on the GSTIN portal. The respondents, including the State of Telangana and the Union of India, opposed the petition on grounds of delay. The petitioner sought to unfreeze their bank account.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition filed on 27.10.2026, challenging an order dated 26.09.2026, is belated, considering the respondents' reliance on the Supreme Court decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited? 2. Whether the petitioner was properly served with a show-cause notice and was aware of the proceedings initiated by the department, as claimed by the petitioner? Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that they came to know of the impugned order only after their bank account was frozen and that the order was merely uploaded on the additional notices tab of the GSTIN portal, thus not coming to their notice. They sought liberty to prefer an appeal with a delay condonation application, requesting the appellate authority to consider the delay condonation application sympathetically. Respondents: Opposed the prayer on the ground of huge delay in preferring the writ petition, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited.