Rep. by its Partner, Ms. Srigiri Kavitha v. Deputy Commissioner - 2 (State Taxes), Enforcement Wing, O/o Commissioner of Commercial
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The instant Writ Petition is disposed of with the
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. rUpon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and havin6; regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the view that since the impugned rectification rejection order did not vary the impugned order, the petitioner may prefer an appeal against the impugned…
Judgment
M/s. S. Malta Reddy and Company, rep. by |E Partner, Ms. Srigiri Kavitha, 6-3-642, fitr" Nagar, Karimnagar, Telangana-S05 001: ..'ET.T'ONER orcoti r"rcial Taxes, Nampally, Hyderabad-'
Deputy commissio net _ 2,,r1g," ;:lrr, =_**rement 2. Assistant Commissioner (State f"i".)' Karimnagar-ll Circle, Warangal Division' ,. Iii?:t"?%,"nnrn", rep. by its secretary to Government (Revenue) cr-r, State wing, o/o commissioner TaxlCommercialTaxesDepartment, secretariat, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction by setting aside the impugned order dated 7.11.2025 along with proceedings in Form DRC-07 vide Ref. No.ZD361 125022'r36U, dated 7.11.2025 and the rejection'of ttre rectification application vide proceeding dated 12-1.2026 by the 1st Respondent for the tax period April, 2021 to March, 2022 on the ground that they are illegal' arbitrary and are issued contrarytotherecordandalsotheprovisionsoftheCentralGoodsandServiceTax Act,20lTandtheTelanganaGoodsandServicesTaxAct'2017' i I j l.A. NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in sr.rpport of the petition, the High court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceerdings pursuant to the impugned order dated 711.2025 along with proceedings in Form DRC-07 vide Ref.
No.ZD361 125022136U dated 7.11.2025 and the rejection of the rectification application vide proceeding dated 12.1.2026 by the 1st Respondent for the tax period Apnl, 2o21to March, 2022 under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2O17 and the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act,2017 pending disposal of the \A/rit Petition as otherwise the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.P.AMARNATH REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPECIAL GOVT - PLEADER FOR STATE TN( The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No. 10317 of 2026 DATED z 08.04.2026 Between: iWs. S. Malla Reddy and Company Rep. by its Partner, Ms. Srigiri Kavitha AND ... Petitioner Deputy Commissioner - 2 (State Taxes), Enforcement Wing, O/o Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad and two others Respondents ORDER: Sri K.P. Amarnath Reddy, learned counsel appears for petitioner. Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax appears for respondents.
The instant Writ Petition has been preferred against the order dated 07.11 .2025 passed Lrnder Section 73 of the Central \ Goods and Services Tax Act,20lTlState Goods and Services Tax Act, 2Ol7 (for short 'the Act'), along with the proceedings 2 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM.., W. P. No. l 03 l 7 of 202fi in FoRM GST DRC-07 dated 07.1I .2025 and the rectiFrcation rejection order dated 12.01.2026 passed by respondent No.l.
Learned counsel for the state Tax submits that the proper remedy for the petitioner is to prefer an appeal.
However, after some arguments, learned counsel for the petitic'ner seeks liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal againsrt the impugned order. He submits that some delay might have been occurred in approaching the appellate authority and therefore, he may be directed to consider it sympathetically.
Operative part
rUpon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and havin6; regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the view that since the impugned rectification rejection order did not vary the impugned order, the petitioner may prefer an appeal against the impugned Order-in-Original within a period of two weeks with statutory pre-deposit along with a delay condonation application. Thereupon, the learned appellzrte authority would consider the same in accordance with law taking into consideration that the petitioner has been , I n 3 HCJ {AKrS, Jl &CMM, J W.P.No. lO317 of 2O26 pursuing the writ remedy before this Court in the meantime as well. The petitioner will be at liberty to take all the grounds in law and on facts before the appellate authority. tf the appellate authority is satisfied that the delay is properly explained, he would proceed to consider the appeal on merits. Let it be made clear that we have not gone into the merits of the case of the parties The instant Writ Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed SD'. T.SREENIVAS REDDY ASSISTANT //TRUE COPY'/ SECTION OFFICER ng' O/o Commissioner To
1. Deputy Commissionet - 2, (State Taxes), of Commercial Taxes, NamPallY, HYderabad Telangana Warangal Division, 2. Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes), 3. Secreiary to Government (Revenue) CT-lt, State Tax I Commercial Taxes Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana' 4. One CC to SRI K.P.AMARNATH REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 5. ONE CC tO SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPECIAL GOW PLEADER FOR STATE TAX [OPUC]
Two CD Copies PSK. TKS @l- HIGH GOIJRT DATED: 0810412026 ORDER WP.No.10317 of 2026 1 ES 14 2 I npR zozn ) I, cr./ 2:. C)(J .i * PAT DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The instant Writ Petition is disposed of with the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151; Central Goods and Service Tax Act; lTlState Goods and Services Tax Act.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.