logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 TSHC 242 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court for the State of Telangana
Case No : Writ Petition No. 13069 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN
Parties : M/s. Manna Enterprises, Rep. by its Proprietor, Emmanuel Malgi Versus The Superintendent of Central Tax, Medchal GST Commissionerate & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Kohir Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate. For the Respondents: Dominic Fernandes (senior standing counsel for CBIC).
Date of Judgment : 27-04-2026
Head Note :-
Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 74 -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

2. Catch Words:
- limitation
- appeal
- writ petition
- digital signature
- delay condonation

3. Summary:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an Order‑In‑Original dated 27.04.2024 and the accompanying Summary of the order in Form GST DRC‑07 for the 2018‑19 tax period, alleging that the absence of a digital signature barred filing an appeal. The petitioner later sought liberty to prefer an appeal despite a delay. The CBIC consented to the filing of an appeal with all available grounds. The Court, without addressing merits, directed that if the petitioner files an appeal within two weeks, along with the statutory pre‑deposit and a delay‑condonation application, the appellate authority may entertain it, considering the time spent on the writ petition. The writ petition was disposed with liberty to appeal and no costs were awarded.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

1. Sri Kohir Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel appears for petitioner. Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) appears for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4.

2.   The instant Writ Petition has been preferred against the Order-In-Original dated 27.04.2024 passed by respondent No.1 under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, along with Summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 03.05.2024, for the tax period 2018-19.

3.   The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the absence of digital signature in the Summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 03.05.2024, an appeal cannot be filed by the petitioner. Therefore, this Court may interfere in the impugned proceedings.

4.   However, after some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned Order-In-Original. He submits that some delay might have been occurred in approaching the appellate authority and therefore, he may be directed to consider it sympathetically.

5.   Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC submits that the petitioner  is  at  liberty  to  prefer  an  appeal  against  the Order-In-Original and Summary of the order in FORM GST DRC-07 taking all the grounds as are available in law and on facts before the appellate authority in respect of the subject tax periods.

6.   Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since the petitioner seeks liberty to prefer an appeal, we do not wish to make any comment on the merits of the contentions raised by the parties.

7.   If the petitioner prefers an appeal within a period of two weeks with statutory pre-deposit along with a delay condonation application, the learned appellate authority would consider it in accordance with law also taking into consideration that the period spent while 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. If the appellate authority is satisfied that the delay is explained, he would entertain the appeal on merits.

8.   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.
 
  CDJLawJournal