Telangana High Court
M/S. Kvrecpl Slns Jv vs The Assistant Commissioner State Tax on 25 March, 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.8699 of 2026
DATED: 25.03.2026
Between:
M/s. KVRECPL SLNS JV,
H.No.17-1-382/B/17, Prashanti Nilayam,
Bhanu NMagar, Champapet,
Saroornagar Mandal, Rangareddy,
Telangana - 500 079,
Rep. by its Managing Partner
Sri Thotakura Kishan Kumar
... Petitioner
AND
The Assistant Commissioner State Tax,
Saroornagar 3-Circle, Saroornagar Division,
Hyderabad & 4 others
... Respondents
ORDER:
Heard Mr. Venkatram Reddy Mantur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax appearing for the respondents.
2. The order-in-original dated 17.08.2024 for the tax period 2019-20 imposed liability of tax amounting to Rs.83,30,872/- upon the petitioner. The 2 application for rectification made by the petitioner on 27.02.2025 has been rejected by the impugned order dated 18.11.2025 confirming the tax liability upon it. Apart from grounds on merit relating to the levy of the liability, a plea has been taken that while passing the rectification order, no notice was issued upon the petitioner. However, as rightly pointed out by learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, under Section 161, 3rd proviso of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, notice or opportunity of hearing is required only when an order adverse to the assessee is going to be passed. In this case, the Proper Officer has not interfered with the order-in-original and there was no enhancement of the liability which necessitated any opportunity by way of show cause or notice upon the petitioner.
3. In these circumstances, the petitioner is allowed liberty to approach the appellate authority with statutory deposit taking all grounds of law and fact as available to it to assail the impugned orders. If such an application is made, the respondents authority would consider the question of delay taking into account that the rectification application of the petitioner was pending before the Proper Officer till 18.11.2025 and thereafter petitioner has pursued the remedy before the writ Court also for some time. It would be open for the appellate authority to take the decision on merits thereafter in accordance with law.
4. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
3
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________________ APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ ______________________________________ G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J Date: 25.03.2026 KL