Writ Denied Due to Statutory Remedy but Liberty Granted to Appeal Delayed Portal Upload

By | June 27, 2026
0 Comment

Writ Denied Due to Statutory Remedy but Liberty Granted to Appeal Delayed Portal Upload

Issue

Whether a writ petition challenging an assessment order passed under Section 73 is maintainable when a statutory appeal remedy exists, but the taxpayer claims a delay in filing the appeal because the order was wrongly or obscurely uploaded under the “additional notices” tab on the GST portal.

Facts

  • The petitioner-taxpayer filed a writ petition challenging a Show Cause Notice (SCN) and a subsequent tax demand order passed under Section 73 covering the financial period from July 2017 to March 2018.

  • The petitioner pleaded that they only gained actual knowledge of the adverse order in March 2026 because the tax department had uploaded it in the obscure “additional notices” tab on the GST portal rather than the primary dashboard.

  • The state revenue authorities resisted the writ petition, arguing that the petition suffered from heavy delay and should be dismissed because an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal was readily available.

  • Recognizing the procedural barrier, the petitioner requested liberty from the court to approach the statutory appellate authority, promising to complete the mandatory pre-deposit and file a delay condonation application.

Decision

  • Refusal to Invoke Writ Jurisdiction: In view of the highly efficacious statutory appeal mechanism available under Section 107 of the Act, the High Court declined to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to decide the case on its merits.

  • Liberty to File Delayed Appeal: The Court granted the petitioner explicit liberty to approach the designated appellate authority by filing a regular statutory appeal alongside a formal delay condonation application and the required statutory pre-deposit.

  • Direction to the Appellate Authority: The appellate authority was directed to objectively examine the explanation for the delay—specifically regarding the portal placement—and, if satisfied with the cause shown, proceed to decide the appeal strictly on its merits. The writ petition was disposed of without costs.

Key Takeaways

  • Portal Placement as a Valid Ground for Delay: Uploading orders in hidden or separate tabs like “additional notices” rather than the main portal dashboard can prevent timely detection, serving as a valid, bona fide ground to seek a condonation of delay.

  • Writ Courts Prefer the Statutory Hierarchy: Constitutional courts will routinely reject direct writ petitions against assessment orders if the taxpayer has skipped the regular appellate route, even when there are minor procedural grievances regarding how notices were served online.

  • Conditional Gateway to Merits: Getting a matter remanded to the appellate authority is a procedural lifeline. The taxpayer must still satisfy the lower tribunal regarding the timeline delay and fulfill the mandatory pre-deposit condition before their arguments on the tax merits can be heard.

HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
Ravi Kunchepu
v.
State Tax Officer (FAC)
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ.
and G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J.
WRIT PETITION No. 18708 of 2026
JUNE  18, 2026
Tejprakash Toshniwal, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner. Swaroop Oorilla, Ld. Special Govt. Pleader for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. Mr. Tejprakash Toshniwal, learned counsel appears for petitioner.
1.1 Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax appears for respondents.
2. In the present case, the show cause notice dated 28.12.2023 and order dated 30.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act’), are under challenge. The instant Writ Petition has been filed on 30.03.2026. The petitioner has taken a plea that he came to know of the impugned order only on 23.03.2026 when the office of respondent No.1 informed him over mobile phone about the alleged demand. The matter relates to the Tax Period July 2017 -March 2018. Therefore, the matter is not belated. This Court may entertain the Writ Petition on the ground that the petitioner was not aware of the proceedings initiated by the Department. Moreover, the impugned order was merely uploaded on the additional notices tab of GSTIN Portal. As such, it was not in the notice of the petitioner.
3. Learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax has opposed the prayer at the outset on the ground of huge delay in preferring this Writ Petition. He has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asstt. Commissioner (CT) LTU v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. 36 GSTL 305/(2020) 19 SCC 681.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, seeks liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal with a delay condonation application in terms of Section 107(1) read with Section 107(4) of the Act. He submits that the appellate authority may be directed to consider the question of delay sympathetically in view of the reasons explained in the delay condonation application.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances as noted above, this Court is not inclined to enter into the merits of the issue as the petitioner is being allowed liberty to approach the appellate authority. He may approach the appellate authority within a period of two weeks with a delay condonation application and statutory pre-deposit. It is open for the petitioner to take all such grounds in law and on facts in the appeal. Needless to say, the appellate authority would consider the question of delay and if it is satisfied with the reasons explained in the delay condonation application, it shall decide the case on merits.
6. The instant Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
7. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.