Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/s. Sri Sai Balaji Ginning and Oil Mill, Khammam, challenged an order-in-original dated 30.01.2023 (Order-in-Original No. 03/2022-2023-Adjn-GST) passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Khammam GST Division, as illegal and a revenue-neutral exercise. The petitioner also sought a stay on collection of a disputed demand comprising CGST and TGST (SGST) of about Rs. 30 lakh each, along with equivalent penalties under each head and interest under Section 50 of the GST Act. The petitioner admitted having received a copy of the impugned order on 23.02.2023, but filed the writ petition only on 05.09.2023 — over seven months later, and well beyond the limitation period ordinarily available for a statutory appeal.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition against a GST assessment order filed more than seven months after its receipt, when a statutory appellate remedy existed but was not availed within time.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The impugned order was illegal, unauthorised, and, in substance, a revenue-neutral exercise, warranting the Court's interference and a stay of the disputed CGST/TGST demand along with penalties and interest under Section 50 of the GST Act.

Respondent's Arguments

The order does not record a detailed contest on the merits from the respondents' counsel; the disposal turned squarely on the delay in approaching the Court rather than any substantive rebuttal.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court observed that the petitioner had admittedly received the impugned order on 23.02.2023 but filed the writ petition only on 05.09.2023 — well beyond the period otherwise available for a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority.
  • Given that the petitioner had neither availed the alternate statutory remedy in time nor approached the writ court promptly, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition at this belated stage.
  • The writ petition was disposed of, without costs, reserving the petitioner's right to avail whatever remedy remains available to him under the statute.
  • No findings were made on whether the underlying CGST/TGST demand was, as claimed, revenue-neutral or otherwise incorrect.

Important Clarification

This order underscores that High Courts are generally reluctant to entertain writ challenges to GST assessment orders once the statutory appeal limitation period has lapsed without explanation. Taxpayers disputing a GST demand — including on grounds of revenue neutrality — should file a statutory appeal promptly rather than delaying and later seeking writ relief.

Sections Involved

  • Section 107, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 / Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — appeal to Appellate Authority
  • Section 50, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — interest on delayed payment
  • Article 226, Constitution of India, 1950

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of without a decision on merits; the writ petition was declined to be entertained due to delay, leaving the petitioner's statutory remedy open (subject to any limitation considerations before that forum).

Case Details

  • Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad
  • Case No.: Writ Petition No. 24794 of 2023
  • Coram: Hon'ble Sri Justice P. Sam Koshy and Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty
  • Date of Order: 6 September 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.