Sri Sai Ram Kirana And General Store vs The Superintendent Of Central Tax
2026 Latest Caselaw 577 Tel

Telangana High Court

Sri Sai Ram Kirana And General Store vs The Superintendent Of Central Tax on 9 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.10537 of 2026

                            DATED: 09.04.2026

Between:

SRI SAI RAM KIRANA AND GENERAL STORE
12-121/4, Bollaram Village Jinnaram,
Bollaram, Medak, Telangana-502 325,
Represented by its Proprietor
Ramesh Naidu Gavara, S/o. Surya Narayana Gavara,
aged about 43 years, Occ: Business,
R/o. Plot No.87, Lane No.5, Brindavan Nagar,
12-121/4, Laxmi Nagar Colony, Bollaram IDA,
Medak, Telangana-502 325.
                                                                ... Petitioner

                                   AND

The Superintendent of Central Tax,
Sangareddy Range, Sangareddy Division,
Medchal Commissionerate, Hyderabad & 3 others
                                                             ... Respondents

ORDER:

Heard Mr. Nishanth Rao KN, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

and Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board

of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. The writ petition has been preferred against the order-in-original dated

19.08.2024 along with summary of order in Form GST DRC-07 dated

28.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act,

2017, for the tax period April, 2019 to March, 2020 imposing the tax, penalty

and interest.

3. The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that it has come to

know about the liability only upon the issuance of the garnishee notice in Form

GST DRC-13 on 31.12.2025 for attachment of its bank account

(Annexure P-3).

4. However, after some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks

liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the order-in-original. 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 Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC submits that the petitioner

was at liberty to prefer an appeal against the order-in-original and DRC-07

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 sympathetically 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. During the period of two weeks within

which the petitioner has to file the appeal, no coercive steps be taken against the

petitioner pursuant to the impugned garnishee notice.

8. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.

However, 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: 09.04.2026 KL