The Telangana High Court has granted liberty to a taxpayer to pursue the statutory appellate remedy against a GST assessment order after taking note of the petitioner’s contention that he became aware of the impugned demand only much later because the order had been uploaded only under the “Additional Notices” tab on the GST portal. 

The Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin directed that the appellate authority consider the taxpayer’s delay condonation application on its own merits if filed within two weeks along with the statutory pre-deposit.

A writ petition filed by a works contractor challenging a show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The petitioner contended that the proceedings suffered from multiple legal infirmities. It was argued that the show cause notice and the assessment order were unsigned, lacked the mandatory digital signature prescribed under Rule 26 of the CGST Rules, did not disclose transaction-wise details for the alleged excess input tax credit, and were issued without granting a personal hearing as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the GST Act.

The petitioner also asserted that the proceedings were barred by limitation under Section 73 and violated the principles of natural justice, rendering the assessment order unsustainable in law. The disputed GST demand involved an amount of ₹2,44,709 for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018.

Before the High Court, the petitioner explained that the writ petition, although filed on 30 March 2026, was not belated because he allegedly became aware of the assessment order only on 23 March 2026, when officials of the State Tax Department informed him over the phone regarding the outstanding demand.

It was further submitted that the impugned order had merely been uploaded under the Additional Notices tab of the GSTN portal and had not otherwise come to the petitioner’s notice. On this basis, the petitioner urged the Court to entertain the writ petition despite the passage of time.

The State Tax Department opposed the writ petition at the threshold, arguing that there had been an inordinate delay in approaching the High Court. The State relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT), LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. (2020) 19 SCC 681, which emphasizes that writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be exercised where the statutory appellate remedy has become time-barred due to the assessee’s delay.

The petitioner sought permission to avail the statutory appellate remedy by filing an appeal accompanied by a delay condonation application under Sections 107(1) and 107(4) of the GST Act.

Accepting this request, the Division Bench declined to examine the merits of the challenge to the assessment order. Instead, it granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority within two weeks, subject to making the statutory pre-deposit required under the GST law.

The High Court observed that the appellate authority would independently examine the reasons furnished in the delay condonation application. If satisfied with the explanation for the delay, the appellate authority would proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits.

The Court also clarified that the petitioner would be free to raise all available legal and factual grounds before the appellate authority during the appellate proceedings. With these observations, the writ petition was disposed of without any order as to costs.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: GST Recovery Stayed: AP HC Directs Fresh Verification on Interest, Penalty for Unutilised ITC