Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/s CVK Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, represented by its authorised signatory Shri Sriharsha Koshan, had its GST appeal rejected by Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-GST-MD-AP2-041-23-24 dated 20.07.2023 in Appeal No.51 of 2023 (MD) GST, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals-II), on the ground that proof of tax payment could not be enclosed with the memo of appeal. As with a related company in the same group of proceedings, the petitioner approached the Telangana High Court since the GST Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 had not been constituted, leaving no statutory forum available for a further appeal, and sought quashing of both the appeal-rejection order and the underlying GST registration cancellation order dated 25.01.2021 (Reference No. ZA36012104239GV).

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the appellate authority was justified in rejecting the appeal solely because proof of tax payment could not be enclosed with the memo of appeal.
  2. Whether the matter warranted remand for fresh consideration given the petitioner's claim of continuity of business and tax payments.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner submitted it possessed proof of tax payment but could not enclose it with the appeal memo, leading to rejection on this technical ground alone, and that a copy of the challan had since been produced along with the writ petition.
  • Reliance was placed on the same authorities cited in the companion CVK matter — Kritika Agarwal v. Union of India (Delhi High Court) and a Division Bench ruling of the Telangana High Court in W.P.No.36174 of 2022 remanding a similar matter.
  • It was also submitted that although the entire tax, interest and late fees had been paid, the amount could not be uploaded since the portal was closed.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Department's counsel appeared but did not press a substantive defence of the appellate authority's technical rejection beyond supporting the impugned order.

Court Order / Findings

  • Following the same reasoning as in its companion ruling for the related CVK entity, the Court found that the petitioner had produced copies of challans showing continuity of business and payment of taxes, the only lapse being the inability to enclose the challan with the appeal memo.
  • The Court held that the petitioner had made out a good case warranting interference to the extent of confirming the payment status, given the challan enclosed with the writ petition, and set aside the Order-in-Appeal dated 20.07.2023.
  • The matter was remitted to the appellate authority to reconsider the appeal on its own merits after due verification of the challan, with a decision directed within four weeks.
  • The writ petition was allowed without costs.

Important Clarification

  • As with the related company's identical circumstance, a GST appeal rejected purely on a missing tax-payment challan can be remanded for fresh verification once the challan is produced, rather than being treated as final.
  • Pending constitution of the GST Appellate Tribunal, the High Court continues to entertain such technical-rejection challenges as the only available remedy.

Sections Involved

  • Section 107, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – first appellate remedy, invoked here.
  • Section 112, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – second appeal to the GST Appellate Tribunal, non-constitution of which drove the petitioner to the High Court.

Decision – In Favour of

The decision is in favour of the Assessee — the appeal-rejection order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration of the appeal on merits after verifying the challan.

Case Details

Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad
Case No.: WP No. 22114 of 2023
Coram: Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty
Date of Order: 17.08.2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

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.