High Court · 2025
Case Details
Acts & Sections
5. Central Board of lndirect Taxes and Customs, GST Policy Wing, Government = ...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 pleasedtoissueunrppropriatewrit,orderorDirectionmoreparticularlyinthe nature of MANDAMUS. i) declaring the action of the 1't Respondent in passing theimpugnedorder.lated19.g.2o25aswelltheo.i-odated22.11.2024andthe six Form DRc-pr; Summary orders dated 3.1.2025 passed by the Respondent are without jurisdiction, contrary to law' being barred by limitation and consequentlyset aside the same aS non-est and void ab initio' ii) lt is also ,?"0 +i .: prayed to declare that the 0_i_0 cannor ha ^^^^_ , Acts. '|v v-r-u cannot be passed under section )o *the GST _ . lA NO: 1 OF 202! in the;;,:H il:11::J;;,jJfJH::::,tha, in the circumstances stated High court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings, incrudin< :,",#H::l:::"fi ff :.::.."::i:i'i";::,;::JiJ.l,*I;,:";lJ: '-vavv s' t 'luzc passed by the 2nd Respondent under the GsT Acts. counset for the Petitioner: sRl M,KTTN,TALA'ATT clunser for the Respondent Nos.1,2 and 5: sRr D. RAGHAVENDRA RAO ' ,GOUNSEI fOr IhE,RCSPONdCNt i sRr N. eHuuAfrciliid, ;ep-uiisiiirl:iio* cer.rennr oi rrvora, NO.3:-S.RI B. MUKHERIEE, APPEARS FOR "" The Court made the foltowing: ORDER (sR sc ron cgtc)--'-, RAMA.HANDRA MuRTHy THE HON'BLE TTII] CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KTIMAR SINGH AND TTTN TTON'BLE SRT JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT ON No. of 2025 ORDER: Sri M. Rarnachandra Murthy, learned courrSel appears for petitioner. Sri D- Raghavendar Rao, learned counsel appears for respondent Nos. l, 2 and 5. Sri B. Mukherjee, learned counsel appears for Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, Iearned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent No.3. 2- The present writ petition is directed against the order-In-original dated 22.1r.2024 and Summary of the order dated 03.01 .2025 and also the order-ln-original dated
19.09.2,025 passed by respondent No.l.
3. The order-In-Appeal has been challenged on the ground \ \ that no opportunity of personal hearing was granted in teeth of Section 118 of the central Goods and Services Tax Act,2017 .. I x I I I I I I I I i t I i I I I i t. I i TI I I i I ! i t I t I 2 ilCJ rAKrS. -;i & G1,1V, J w P. No.346 i0 of 2025 (for shoft 'the Act'). The operative paft of the impugned Order-lli-Appeal is extracted hereunder: "5. In the prcsent appeal, the impuEred order u'as isstrecl ot 22"d November, 2074 and the appcllartt has received the same on 27tl'Novembcr, 20t7"fhe appcal u'irs required to be filed on or before 26'h ftebruary, 2025' in normal pcriod. whereas, the appeal has beeu t-rle:cl tln 17tr' September, 2025 i-e-, with a delay of 203 dals' 'l'l're appellate authority is empowcred to condone a clelay c'['oue month in addition to the stipulated period of three nronths and any delay beyond the same cannot be condoneci Since' I am ttot empowered to condone the delay beyond a pcriod of one month from the date of complction of threc rttonths frorn the date of communication of the impugned order' I am constrained to hold that the appeal is liable to be rejected as time-barred. tn this regard, I place rcliattce otr the decision of the Hon'ble CESTAT in the case of Shambhu Synthetics P\4 Ltd vs Comutissiotler, ()u:stoms vide Final Order No. 5120312021 dated 0l '04 1021' rvherein, relying on the decision of the Flon'ble Sttt)rcrtlte Court in Singh Enterprises (2008 (221) E'l,T' 163 (S'C')' rheHon,bleTribunalheldthattheappellateauthor.itvlras r1o power to allow the appeal to be presentcd beyonti the r;tipulated Period." ln view of the above, I proceed to decrdc thc (;. a.ppeal without granting the personal hearing to the appellant in as much as, the submissions that are goirrg to be made by the appellant, during the personal hearinc' are not going to alter the facts of the case rvith regard to hmitation.
7. I, therefore, pass the following order: ORDER The appeals are dismissed as time-barred '' { t 3 "',t lilllii}$til'l;,' condonatton
4. The petitioner had also f,rted a delay application as is evident tiom Annexure P'l1' 5. Section 107 (8) of the Act reads as un(cr: ,.Section 107. Appeals to Appellate Authority'- 8) The Appellate Authority shail give an opportunity to the appellant of being heard'"
6. The language of the above Provlsion shows that opportunity of hearing is mandatory in view of expresslon ,,shall,, used in it. The appellate authority i.n his wisdom howeverchosetodismisstheappealwithoutgrantingany opportunity of hearing to the petitioner' The approach of the appellateauthorityisthereforeinbreachoftheabovestatutory provision. we are not commenting on the merits of the plea raised by the petitioner for condonation of delay.
7. However, only on account of infraction of the statutory procedure prescribed under Section 107(8) of the Act, the impugned Order-In-Appeal is set aside. The matter is remitted to the appellate authority to pass a fresh order in accordance 4 :.CJ i..\iirs, Jl & w p.\o 34ds0 G.\tNI, J of 2O2S r.vith law after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner Accordingry, the instant writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no orde.r as to costs. Misceilaneous apprications, if any pending, sha, stand closed SD/ SRIN IVASA REDDY ISTANT REG ISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, /TRUE COPYII 3' -
1. The Commissioner of Custo uommrssionerate, 7th Floor. ' ! rvvr' Hyderabad-500004.- ms and Central GST Bhavan, L. B 2- The Joint commissioner of centrat rg, Hyd_erabad psl commissionerate, GSt- Bhavin, r.b $llium noaci,b:*nE"roash, Hyderabad_ ISbFiX:', ISirto%:[?", Union of rndia, Ministryof Finance, No.1s6-A, North Brock, of lndia, Ministry of Finance; G* Delhi. #ilJ.i:',ir:1.1?;:?:?i],1oHir"J,.Til#int, state or reransana, Revenue (cr-rr) 5. central Board of rndirect raxes and customs, GST poricy wing, Government 6' one cc to Sri tMuktinutarapati Ramachandra fr/urthy, Advocate topuc] 7. one cc to Sri D. Raghavendra Rao (sR sc for cBrc) topucl B. one cc to sri [rl. Bhujanga Rao, Deputy solicitor General of lndia[opuc] 9. Two CD Copies TJ LS M'/ e n ': j' 1 i1;: :j i..1 t,: (. tB EEr Zffi Y {, HIGH COURT DATED:2511112A25 ORDER WP.No.34650 ot 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS &^^ \^
5. Central Board of lndirect Taxes and Customs, GST Policy Wing, Government = ...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 pleasedtoissueunrppropriatewrit,orderorDirectionmoreparticularlyinthe nature of MANDAMUS. i) declaring the action of the 1't Respondent in passing theimpugnedorder.lated19.g.2o25aswelltheo.i-odated22.11.2024andthe six Form DRc-pr; Summary orders dated 3.1.2025 passed by the Respondent are without jurisdiction, contrary to law' being barred by limitation and consequentlyset aside the same aS non-est and void ab initio' ii) lt is also ,?"0 +i .: prayed to declare that the 0_i_0 cannor ha ^^^^_ , Acts. '|v v-r-u cannot be passed under section )o *the GST _ . lA NO: 1 OF 202! in the;;,:H il:11::J;;,jJfJH::::,tha, in the circumstances stated High court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings, incrudin< :,",#H::l:::"fi ff :.::.."::i:i'i";::,;::JiJ.l,*I;,:";lJ: '-vavv s' t 'luzc passed by the 2nd Respondent under the GsT Acts. counset for the Petitioner: sRl M,KTTN,TALA'ATT clunser for the Respondent Nos.1,2 and 5: sRr D. RAGHAVENDRA RAO ' ,GOUNSEI fOr IhE,RCSPONdCNt i sRr N. eHuuAfrciliid, ;ep-uiisiiirl:iio* cer.rennr oi rrvora, NO.3:-S.RI B. MUKHERIEE, APPEARS FOR "" The Court made the foltowing: ORDER (sR sc ron cgtc)--'-, RAMA.HANDRA MuRTHy THE HON'BLE TTII] CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KTIMAR SINGH AND TTTN TTON'BLE SRT JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT ON No. of 2025 ORDER: Sri M. Rarnachandra Murthy, learned courrSel appears for petitioner. Sri D- Raghavendar Rao, learned counsel appears for respondent Nos. l, 2 and 5. Sri B. Mukherjee, learned counsel appears for Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, Iearned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent No.3. 2- The present writ petition is directed against the order-In-original dated 22.1r.2024 and Summary of the order dated 03.01 .2025 and also the order-ln-original dated
19.09.2,025 passed by respondent No.l.
3. The order-In-Appeal has been challenged on the ground \ \ that no opportunity of personal hearing was granted in teeth of Section 118 of the central Goods and Services Tax Act,2017 .. I x I I I I I I I I i t I i I I I i t. I i TI I I i I ! i t I t I 2 ilCJ rAKrS. -;i & G1,1V, J w P. No.346 i0 of 2025 (for shoft 'the Act'). The operative paft of the impugned Order-lli-Appeal is extracted hereunder: "5. In the prcsent appeal, the impuEred order u'as isstrecl ot 22"d November, 2074 and the appcllartt has received the same on 27tl'Novembcr, 20t7"fhe appcal u'irs required to be filed on or before 26'h ftebruary, 2025' in normal pcriod. whereas, the appeal has beeu t-rle:cl tln 17tr' September, 2025 i-e-, with a delay of 203 dals' 'l'l're appellate authority is empowcred to condone a clelay c'['oue month in addition to the stipulated period of three nronths and any delay beyond the same cannot be condoneci Since' I am ttot empowered to condone the delay beyond a pcriod of one month from the date of complction of threc rttonths frorn the date of communication of the impugned order' I am constrained to hold that the appeal is liable to be rejected as time-barred. tn this regard, I place rcliattce otr the decision of the Hon'ble CESTAT in the case of Shambhu Synthetics P\4 Ltd vs Comutissiotler, ()u:stoms vide Final Order No. 5120312021 dated 0l '04 1021' rvherein, relying on the decision of the Flon'ble Sttt)rcrtlte Court in Singh Enterprises (2008 (221) E'l,T' 163 (S'C')' rheHon,bleTribunalheldthattheappellateauthor.itvlras r1o power to allow the appeal to be presentcd beyonti the r;tipulated Period." ln view of the above, I proceed to decrdc thc (;. a.ppeal without granting the personal hearing to the appellant in as much as, the submissions that are goirrg to be made by the appellant, during the personal hearinc' are not going to alter the facts of the case rvith regard to hmitation.
7. I, therefore, pass the following order: ORDER The appeals are dismissed as time-barred '' { t 3 "',t lilllii}$til'l;,' condonatton
4. The petitioner had also f,rted a delay application as is evident tiom Annexure P'l1' 5. Section 107 (8) of the Act reads as un(cr: ,.Section 107. Appeals to Appellate Authority'- 8) The Appellate Authority shail give an opportunity to the appellant of being heard'"
6. The language of the above Provlsion shows that opportunity of hearing is mandatory in view of expresslon ,,shall,, used in it. The appellate authority i.n his wisdom howeverchosetodismisstheappealwithoutgrantingany opportunity of hearing to the petitioner' The approach of the appellateauthorityisthereforeinbreachoftheabovestatutory provision. we are not commenting on the merits of the plea raised by the petitioner for condonation of delay.
7. However, only on account of infraction of the statutory procedure prescribed under Section 107(8) of the Act, the impugned Order-In-Appeal is set aside. The matter is remitted to the appellate authority to pass a fresh order in accordance 4 :.CJ i..\iirs, Jl & w p.\o 34ds0 G.\tNI, J of 2O2S r.vith law after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner Accordingry, the instant writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no orde.r as to costs. Misceilaneous apprications, if any pending, sha, stand closed SD/ SRIN IVASA REDDY ISTANT REG ISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, /TRUE COPYII 3' -
1. The Commissioner of Custo uommrssionerate, 7th Floor. ' ! rvvr' Hyderabad-500004.- ms and Central GST Bhavan, L. B 2- The Joint commissioner of centrat rg, Hyd_erabad psl commissionerate, GSt- Bhavin, r.b $llium noaci,b:*nE"roash, Hyderabad_ ISbFiX:', ISirto%:[?", Union of rndia, Ministryof Finance, No.1s6-A, North Brock, of lndia, Ministry of Finance; G* Delhi. #ilJ.i:',ir:1.1?;:?:?i],1oHir"J,.Til#int, state or reransana, Revenue (cr-rr) 5. central Board of rndirect raxes and customs, GST poricy wing, Government 6' one cc to Sri tMuktinutarapati Ramachandra fr/urthy, Advocate topuc] 7. one cc to Sri D. Raghavendra Rao (sR sc for cBrc) topucl B. one cc to sri [rl. Bhujanga Rao, Deputy solicitor General of lndia[opuc] 9. Two CD Copies TJ LS M'/ e n ': j' 1 i1;: :j i..1 t,: (. tB EEr Zffi Y {, HIGH COURT DATED:2511112A25 ORDER WP.No.34650 ot 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS &^^ \^