M/S Adani-Elbit Advanced Systems India ... vs Union Of India
2026 Latest Caselaw 254 Tel

Telangana High Court

M/S Adani-Elbit Advanced Systems India ... vs Union Of India on 1 April, 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.34685 of 2025

                            Dated: 01.04.2026
Between:
M/s. Adani-Elbit Advanced Systems India Limited.
                                                       ...Petitioner

                                   and
Union of India,
Through Finance Secretary,
North Block, New Delhi,
and 2 others.
                                                     ...Respondents


ORDER:

Learned counsel Sri Pawan Arora, representing learned counsel

Sri Myla Srihari, appears for the petitioner.

Sri D.Raghavendar Rao, learned Senior Standing Counsel for

Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), appears for

respondents No.2 and 3.

2. The present writ petition is directed against the

order-in-original dated 28.03.2024 passed by respondent No.2 and the

order-in-appeal dated 21.08.2025 passed by respondent No.3.

3. The order-in-appeal has been challenged on the ground that no

opportunity of personal hearing was granted in teeth of Section 107(8)

of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to

as, "the Act"). The operative part of the impugned order-in-appeal is

extracted hereunder:

"6. In view of the above, I proceed to decide the appeal without granting the personal hearing to the appellant in as much as, the submissions that are going to be made by the appellant, during the personal hearing, are not going to alter the facts of the case with regard to limitation.

7. I, therefore, pass the following order:

ORDER:

The appeal is dismissed as time-barred."

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents.

5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC submits that the

appeal was filed with a delay of 242 days. However, in the writ petition,

the petitioner has sought to recompute the delay and taken a different

ground.

6. Section 107(8) of the Act reads as under:

"107. Appeals to Appellate Authority.-

xxx

8) The Appellate Authority shall give an opportunity to the appellant of being heard."

7. The language of the above provision shows that opportunity of

hearing is mandatory in view of expression "shall" used in it. The

appellate authority in his wisdom however chose to dismiss the appeal

without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The

approach of the appellate authority is therefore in breach of the above

statutory provision.

8. Be that as it may, since no opportunity of hearing has been

granted before dismissal of the appeal on grounds of delay, in teeth of

Section 107(8) of the Act, it is not necessary for us to go into the period

of delay or the explanation to be furnished by the petitioner before the

appellate authority. It is open for the petitioner to explain the delay

before the appellate authority who may consider the same.

9. However, only on account of infraction of the statutory procedure

prescribed under Section 107(8) of the Act, the impugned order-in-

appeal is set aside. The matter is remitted to the appellate authority to

pass a fresh order in accordance with law after granting an opportunity

of hearing to the petitioner.

10. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of. There shall

be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________________________ APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ

______________________________________ G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J

01.04.2026 vs