M/s Laxmi Chaitanya Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes), Sangareddy-I Circle & Ors.
VALIDATED FULL-TEXT JUDGMENTPDF provenance: The local PDF was generated by Indian Kanoon from the complete validated judgment text. It is searchable and text-matched, but is not an official court-issued PDF. The official court portal is listed separately; no judgment-specific official deep link is asserted.
Two-minute summary
At the taxpayer's request, the High Court left all factual and legal grounds open for a statutory appeal. An appeal filed within two weeks with pre-deposit and a condonation request was directed to be considered under the governing law.
Material facts
Amarnath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition has been preferred against the show cause notice dated 03.06.2022 and the order in Form DRC-07 dated 21.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the tax period April 2019 to March 2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the State Tax authorities have issued show cause notice dated 03.06.2022 under Section 73 of the Telangana State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Issues
- Whether the taxpayer should be permitted to challenge the section 73 GST order through a delayed statutory appeal rather than obtain a merits ruling in writ jurisdiction.
Court reasoning
However, since the petitioner has no knowledge about the same, it could not file any objections. Therefore, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order in Form GST DRC-07 on 21.08.2024. Since the petitioner was suffering from various health issues, it could not file reply to the said show cause notice.
Ratio / controlling principle
At the taxpayer's request, the High Court left all factual and legal grounds open for a statutory appeal. An appeal filed within two weeks with pre-deposit and a condonation request was directed to be considered under the governing law.
Operative order
4. However, after some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned order. He submits that some delay might have been occurred in approaching the appellate authority and therefore, he may be directed to consider it sympathetically. 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. There shall be no order as to costs.
Statutes and provisions
- Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
- State Goods and Services Tax Act
- Section 73
Scope limits
- The decision is confined to the issues decided on the retained record; verify the complete judgment and subsequent history before reliance.
Completeness and review
- Source text
- Complete judgment text, validated against the public source
- PDF status
- Generated from validated complete text (not an official court PDF)
- Text-to-PDF match
- Passed
- PDF pages
- 2
- Source words
- 692
- Later history
- Not verified — check the official court record for later history before reliance (as of 20 Sep 2026)
- PDF SHA-256
e7ae6dbfd4f7f08960095cb48eaf53601cb855cfce5deb4f789e2f065d723295
Read the complete searchable judgment text
M/S. Laxmi Chaitanya Enterprises vs The Assistant Commissioner (State ... on 20 August, 2026
M/S. Laxmi Chaitanya Enterprises vs The Assistant
Commissioner (State ... on 20 August, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
WRIT PETITION No.27367 of 2026
Dated: 20.08.2026
Between:
M/s. Laxmi Chaitanya Enterprises,
Rep., by its Proprietor, Mr. Nagi Reddy Daggula,
Sangareddy, Telangana.
...Petitioner
and
The Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes),
Sangareddy-1 Circle, Nizamabad Division,
Telangana and 6 others.
...Respondents
ORDER:
Mr. K.P. Amarnath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special
Government Pleader appears for State Tax.
Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel appears for Central Board of Indirect
Taxes and Customs (CBIC).
2. The writ petition has been preferred against the show cause notice dated 03.06.2022 and the
order in Form DRC-07 dated 21.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services
Tax Act, 2017 and Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the tax period April 2019 to
March 2020.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the State Tax authorities have issued
show cause notice dated 03.06.2022 under Section 73 of the Telangana State Goods and Services
Tax Act, 2017. However, since the petitioner has no knowledge about the same, it could not file any
objections. Therefore, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order in Form GST DRC-07 on
21.08.2024. Meanwhile, respondent No.3, who is the Superintendent of Central Tax, has issued
show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 14.12.2023 seeking to impose tax and other dues
along with interest and penalty. Since the petitioner was suffering from various health issues, it
could not file reply to the said show cause notice. As such, respondent No.3 confirmed the demand
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/28114057/ 1
M/S. Laxmi Chaitanya Enterprises vs The Assistant Commissioner (State ... on 20 August, 2026
vide order dated 12.04.2024. Against the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before respondent
No.4 and the same was allowed on 05.02.2025. The petitioner has approached this Court alleging
that it has come to know about the liability vide impugned order dated 21.08.2024 only in the
month of July, 2026 on the intimation from the State Tax Department. It is also alleged that the
impugned order is unsigned.
4. However, after some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to the petitioner
to prefer an appeal against the impugned order. 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 Special Government Pleader for State Tax submits that the petitioner was at liberty to
prefer an appeal against the impugned order taking all the grounds as are available in law and on
facts before the appellate authority in respect of the subject tax period.
6. However, upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, since the petitioner seeks liberty to
prefer an appeal, we do not wish to comment on the merits of the contentions raised by the parties.
7. We grant liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal within a period of two weeks with statutory
pre-deposit and a delay condonation application. The petitioner may take all such grounds of law
and facts in the memo of appeal as are available to it. Needless to say, the appellate authority would
consider the question of delay taking into account the aforesaid facts and circumstances and if he is
satisfied on the point of delay, proceed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law.
8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. There shall be no order as
to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
____________________________ G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J Date: 20.08.2026 ES
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/28114057/ 2
Disclaimer: Educational and research material only; not legal, tax, investment or professional advice. Verify the official court record, statutory version, jurisdiction and subsequent history before reliance.