Delayed Writ Disallowed and Assessee Remanded to Pursue Statutory Appeal Route Under Section 107

Delayed Writ Disallowed and Assessee Remanded to Pursue Statutory Appeal Route Under Section 107

Issue

Whether a delayed writ petition challenging an assessment order passed under Section 73 of the TGST Act should be entertained on its merits, or if the petitioner should be relegated to the alternative statutory appeal mechanism under Section 107 of the Act with a plea for condonation of delay.

Facts

• The Petitioner was aggrieved by an assessment order dated December 19, 2023, passed by the tax authority under Section 73 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax (TGST) Act, 2017 for the financial period 2017-18.

• The Petitioner failed to file a statutory appeal against this assessment order within the prescribed limitation period under Section 107.

• Instead of appealing, the Petitioner initially filed a writ petition challenging the order; however, that writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh one after the State raised objections regarding the delay and the lack of clarity on when the petitioner gained knowledge of the order.

• On April 15, 2026, the Petitioner filed the present writ petition assailing the same 2023 order, claiming that they only became aware of the impugned order in February 2025.

• The State strongly opposed the writ petition, citing an excessive and unreasonable delay in approaching the High Court.

• Recognizing the delay, the Petitioner alternatively sought liberty from the Court to approach the statutory appellate authority under Section 107 alongside an application for condonation of delay.

Decision

• The High Court declined to interfere with the impugned assessment order on its merits due to the availability of an alternative, efficacious statutory remedy.

• The Court permitted the Petitioner to file a regular statutory appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107 within a strict timeline of two weeks from the date of judgment.

• The Petitioner was directed to comply with the mandatory statutory pre-deposit requirements and submit a formal application explaining the reasons for the delay to seek condonation.

• The Court observed that the Petitioner remains free to raise all permissible grounds of law and fact before the departmental appellate forum.

• The appellate authority was directed to evaluate the delay condonation application independently and, if satisfied with the explanation provided by the petitioner, proceed to decide the case on its merits.

Key Takeaways

• Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies: High Courts will generally not entertain writ petitions under Article 226 when an explicit, structured statutory appeal route (like Section 107 of the CGST/TGST Act) is available to the taxpayer.

• Writ Jurisdiction is Not an Escape from Limitation: Taxpayers cannot use the discretionary writ jurisdiction of High Courts simply to bypass or circumvent expired limitation periods meant for filing regular tax appeals.

• Conditional Condonation: When a court relegates an assessee to the appellate authority despite significant delays, the authority retains the statutory discretion to judge whether the delay explanation is valid before admitting the appeal on its merits.

• Pre-Deposit is Mandatory: Even when approaching an appellate forum under judicial directions after a failed writ attempt, the mandatory pre-deposit conditions prescribed by the GST law must be strictly fulfilled to maintain the appeal.