Telangana High Court
M/S. Bhikshapathy Kummari vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Central ... on 26 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. 8988 of 2026
DATED : 26.03.2026
Between:
M/s. Bhikshapathy Kummari
Represented by its Proprietor
Mr. Bhikshapathi Kummari
... Petitioner
AND
The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax,
Shamshabad CGST Division,
Madhapur, Hyderabad and three others
... Respondents
ORDER:
Sri M. Venkatram 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 and 4.
Sri K. Rajesh Reddy, learned counsel appears for respondent No.3.
2. This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer:
".....to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction declaring:
2 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J W.P.No.8988 of 2026 (1) the action of the 1st Respondent in passing the Order-in-
Original dated 28.11.2024 served through speed post, levying tax of CGST/SGST, Interest and Penalty under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act 2017, for the tax period 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20, without satisfying the ingredients of Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act 2017, instead of passing the Order-in-Original under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act 2017, without considering the detailed objections of the Petitioner dated 05.11.2024, without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard, as arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the CGST/SGST Act 2017 and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Rule of Law;
(2) The action of the 1st Respondent has without even issuing Form GST DRC -01A as contemplated under Rule 142 (1A) of Rules 2017, without jurisdiction and which is in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently set aside order - in - original dated 28.11.2024. (3) To quash and set aside the Rejection Order dated 09.01.2026 passed by the (R1) Assistant Commissioner, Shamshabad, which illegally, arbitrary denied the Petitioner the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme under Section 128A of the CGST Act, 2017.
(4) To direct the 1st Respondent to lift the bank attachment and withdraw the Garnishee Notice dated 08.05.2025 (Ex-P2) issued to SBI, Kothur Branch, the petitioner is unable to do business transaction.
(5) the action of the 1st Respondent in passing a Composite Order-in-Original, dated 28.11.2024 for a period of four financial years, 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20, the order is barred by limitation and is not valid in the eye of law; the "Tax Period" is defined under Section 2(106) of the CGST Act, 2017 and consequently set aside the Order-in- Original dated 28.11.2024 passed by the 1st Respondent, for the tax periods 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 under the CGST/SGST Act 2017, and to direct the Respondent to reconsider the Petitioner's tax liability for the works 3 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J W.P.No.8988 of 2026 contract services at the correct rate of 12% (as per Notification No.24/2017-CT Rate) instead of 18% as null and void."
3. The petitioner had filed an application for taking the benefit of waiver of interest and penalty under Section 128A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'the Act') on 17.01.2025 which was however rejected on 09.01.2026 as the impugned order-in-original dated 28.11.2024 read with DRC-07 issued by respondent No.1 is passed under Section 74 of the Act which is not eligible for waiver of tax, interest and penalty. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court challenging the garnishee notice dated 08.05.2025. The petitioner claims to have paid the entire tax liability.
4. Learned counsel for the Department submits that the rejection of the application under Section 128A of the Act is proper and deserves no interference since the proceedings and the order-in-original are passed under Section 74 of the Act. It is further submitted that the petitioner if aggrieved by the order under Section 74 of the Act, is at liberty to approach the 4 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J W.P.No.8988 of 2026 appellate authority by taking all the grounds as are available to it in law and on facts before the appellate authority which he has failed to do so.
5. 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.
6. The petitioner may approach the appellate authority within a period of two (2) 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 he is satisfied with the reasons explained in the delay condonation application, he shall decide the case on merits. During the period of two weeks within which the petitioner has to file an appeal, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned garnishee notice.
5 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J W.P.No.8988 of 2026
7. 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.
____________________________ APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ _____________________ G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J 26th MARCH, 2026.
kvni