Facts of the Case

Mohan Reddy Thippireddy, proprietor of M/S Sri Laxmi Narasimha Agencies, Nizamabad, filed five connected writ petitions — W.P. Nos. 22653, 22655, 22663, 22680 and 22688 of 2026 — before the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, against the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Nizamabad Circle, the State of Telangana, the Union of India, the CBIC and the GST Council. Each petition challenged a distinct show-cause notice, Order-in-Original and Summary Order in Form GST DRC-07 issued under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Telangana/Andhra Pradesh GST Act, 2017, covering different tax periods ranging from July 2017 to March 2022. The petitioner alleged that the impugned orders were unsigned and that he was not afforded an effective opportunity of personal hearing before they were passed. The connected matters were heard and disposed of by a Common Order dated 17.07.2026 by the Chief Justice Sri Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G. M. Mohiuddin.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the impugned Orders-in-Original and Summary Orders in Form GST DRC-07, across the five tax periods, were vitiated for being unsigned and for denial of an effective personal hearing.
  2. Whether, once the petitioner sought liberty to file statutory appeals instead of pressing the writ petitions on merits, the Court should adjudicate the merits or simply grant liberty to appeal.
  3. Whether any delay in approaching the appellate authority ought to be condoned given the pendency of the writ petitions.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner initially contended that the impugned orders across all five tax periods were unsigned and that no effective opportunity of personal hearing had been granted before they were passed.
  • After some arguments, counsel for the petitioner sought liberty to prefer statutory appeals against the impugned orders instead, submitting that any delay in approaching the appellate authority might have occurred and requesting sympathetic consideration of that delay.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Special Government Pleader for State Tax submitted that the petitioner was at liberty to prefer appeals against the impugned orders, raising all grounds available in law and on facts, before the appellate authority for each of the subject tax periods.

Court Order/Findings

  • Since the petitioner sought liberty to prefer appeals rather than press the writ petitions further, the Court expressly declined to comment on the merits of the contentions raised by either side.
  • The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to prefer appeals within two weeks, along with the statutory pre-deposit and delay condonation applications, permitting him to raise all grounds of law and fact available in the memoranda of appeal.
  • The appellate authority was directed to consider the question of delay taking into account the facts and circumstances, and, if satisfied, to proceed to decide the appeals on merits in accordance with law; the writ petitions were disposed of on this liberty, with no order as to costs.

Important Clarification

Where a petitioner challenging multiple GST DRC-07 orders across different tax periods opts, during the hearing, to seek liberty to file statutory appeals rather than press the writ petition on natural-justice grounds (such as unsigned orders or denial of hearing), the High Court will typically grant that liberty without expressing any opinion on the merits, while directing the appellate authority to consider condonation of delay sympathetically in view of the time spent in the writ proceedings.

Sections Involved

  • Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – the parallel statutes under which the show-cause notices and Orders-in-Original for the five tax periods were issued.
  • Form GST DRC-07 – the summary order communicating the final demand of tax, interest and penalty following adjudication, which the petitioner sought to challenge for each period.
  • Section 107, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – provides the statutory appeal, pre-deposit and delay-condonation route to which the petitioner was granted liberty to resort.

Decision – In Favour of

This is a liberty-only disposal with no comment on the merits of either the natural-justice grounds raised by the petitioner or the Department's position. Honestly framed, it is disposed of with directions, in a neutral/procedural posture — the petitioner secured a structured route to appeal with sympathetic consideration of delay, but neither an assessee-win nor a department-win on the substance of the five demands can be read into this common order.

Related Case Laws

No directly on-point case notes are currently published on this site.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad
  • Case No.: Writ Petition Nos. 22653, 22655, 22663, 22680 and 22688 of 2026
  • CNR: Not available on record
  • Coram: Chief Justice Sri Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G. M. Mohiuddin
  • Decision Date: 17 July 2026
  • Disposal Nature: Disposed of (common order)

Link to Download the Order

Download the full judgment (PDF)

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.