M/s. Synergy Foods and Beverages v. The Deputy State Tax Officer

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring (i) the action of 3'd respondent in issuing the appeal dismissal Order in Appeal vide ref. no. 2D360925053227 5 dated 29.09.2025instead of allowing the appeal and disposing on merits, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as arbitrary, illegal, apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and provision of GST Ac|,2017, and to consequently set aside any action taken pursuant thereto and pass such further or other order(s) as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumst;inces of the case and/or (ii) the in-action of the Respondent No. 1 not deciding the application daled 22.09.2025 and conse(luently declare the notice vide ref no 2A360824036643E dated 13.08.2O24 in Form GST REG- 17and Order vide re,f no. 2A3609240369824 in Form G[]T REG-19 dated 13.09.2024as being void. arbitrary, illegal, without authority of law and without jurisdictron, violatrve of the Principles of Natural Justice apart trom berng vrolative of Articles 1a. 19(1.(g), 21 and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and to consequently set aside the notice and lmpugned Order by restoring the GST registration of the Pt-'titioner and pass such further or other order(s) as this Honourable Court mav deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under [iection '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in s,upport of the petition, the High Court rnay be pleased to suspend the operation of Order vide ref no. 243609240369824 in Form GST REG-19 dated 13 09.2024in the interest of Justice and equity as otherwise, the Petitioner will be put tl irreparable loss and hardship, in the rnterest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI V. VEERESHAM counsel for the Respondents : tliBg?Bfl"r"riro#.#, The Court made the l'ollowing: ORDER --.-i-...-r--- + I s t* * t 1, I * __-l_ THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No.3O37l of 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri V.Veercsham, iearned counsel lor the pctitioner and Sri Srvaroop Oorilla, Iearned Specia'l Governmcnt Pleader for State Tax, appearing for the rcspor-rde nts.

2. The petitioner's GST registration u,as cancelled u,ith effect from 31 .12.2023 by the order dated 13.09.2024 (Annexurc P.4) in trorm GST REG-19 issued under Rule 22(3) ol thc Telangana Goods and Services Ta-x Rr-rles, 20 17 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Rules"), on the ground that the petitioner had failed to furnish the returns for the prescribed period in contravention of the provisions of Section '29(21(cl of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax I AcL, 2Ol7

3. 1'he petitioner, instead of preferring an application lor revocatiorr of cancellation of its registration before the same authoritv \\,ithin the prescribcd time or the highor authorit-y rvithin the extendcd period ol time in terms of Rule 23(1) of the Rr-rles. ohosc to prefer a belated appeal, u'hich has been rejected bv tl-re impugned order dated 29.09.202i.

4. l,earnecl counscl lor thc petitioner submit: that thr:re are no oul.standing dues. The petitioner, therefore, has been compellecl t.o approach this Court. Thc pctiticner had sought to e;iplain thc dela-r' grounds of illness lx enclosing tlre mcdical certilicates u.ith the mem,r of appeal in appeal Form CST APL-O1.

5. Learned Special (]overnment Pleader for State Tax appeerring lirr tl-rc respondents submits that the appeal has been rejectcd on grounds ol delay. [t is not cleetr from the pleadings as 1o \\'hethe r there are oul.standing dr,res against the petitioner u'hich, in an,\' case, has to be deposited before an_v s;uch request is to bc cntertaint:d by the competent alrthority ulldcr Rule 23(21 of the Rules. He also points our to the time limit prescribed under Rule 23( 1) of the Rules for approachir.rg the prol)er officer. --_.-.- However, he submits that this Court may pass appropriate orders as may deem fit in the facts ol the case.

6. Having considered tl-rc submissions of learned counsel for thc parties, it appears that the petitior-rer, instead of approaching the proper officer or the next higl'rer ollicer in terms of Rule 23(1) of the Rules, preferred an appeal w,hich ',,r,as belated. The time iimit lor approaching the Commissioner ol Ta-xes also appears to have crossed. 7 . Be that as it may, since the petitioner is inclined to approach the competent authority in terms of Rulc 23(i)ol the Rules, libert_y is granted to the petitioner to do so for revocation of caLncellation of its registration u.ithin a period of tr.l'o u,eeks from today. In case such an application is filed, tl-re competent authority in terms of Rule 23(2) of the Rules u,ould consider the petitioner's request in accordance u,ith lan,. Needlcss to sav that the petitioner would be required to pa), any outstanding tax dues which are due against it. l E I B. The u,ri, petition IS accordingl)I disposed of. There shall be no orrlcr as to costs. Miscellancous applications pending. if rtnv, shall stand closcrl //TRUE COPY' t- Itl OSMAN ALI BAIG 'r-ANT REGIS A CTION C)FFICER To,

1. The Deputy Stat€) Tax Officer, Hydernagar 1 Circle, H era bad Rural Division,3rd Floc,r, North Wing. Gaganvihar Building. Opp Gandhi Bhavan. Nampally, Hyderabad-500 00'1 2 3 4 6 7 The Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Hyderabad Rural Division, 6th Floor, Gaganvihar Building, Opp Gandhi Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad-500 001 The Appellate Joint Commissioner, Hyderabad Rural Division, 5th Floor, C.T Complex, Nampaily, Hyderabad- 500 004 The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department (Commercial Tax), State of Telangana, Secretariat Complex, Hyderabad, Telangana One CC to SRI V. VEERESHAM, Advocate. [OPUC] One CC to SRI S\tVAROOP OORILLA, SPL.G.P for State Tax. [OPUC] Two CD Copies. BSK BS W ( a * t 4 7 q, * HIGH COURT DATED:08/1012025 * * ; s ; WP.No.30371 of 2025 t 1 Ht S 14; [ 1 Nti'J tu z o .\ i ./)FSprl CH t * .* { DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS n \ L'l 4// 4, !-/ -{ 1i i t ( I €