[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
M/S. Rythu Seva Kendram Bairanpally vs The Superintendent Of Central Tax on 30 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. 4967 of 2026
DATED : 30.03.2026
Between:
M/s. Rythu Seva Kendram Bairanpally,
Rep., by its Proprietor, Mohd. Ismail Abbas,
Siddipet, Telangana.
... Petitioner
AND
The Superintendent of Central Tax,
Siddipet GST Range, Siddipet, Telangana and 5 others.
... Respondents
ORDER:
Mr. Md. Shabaz, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for
Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) appears for
respondent No.5.
2. The writ petition has been preferred with the following prayers:
"For all the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is
prayed that this Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to issue a
writ, order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of a
Writ of Mandamus
(i) To declare the impugned Form APL 02 dated 13.11.2025
rejecting the appeal by the 3rd Respondent under the provisions
of CGST/TGST Act, 2017 as being in violation of Section
107(8), 107(11) and 107(12) of GST Act, 2017 being in
violation of Principles of natural justice, without authority and
jurisdiction and in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of
the Constitution of India, by condoning the delay in filing the
appeal, and to consequently set aside any action taken pursuant
thereto including recovery proceedings if any and pass such
further or other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case; and/or
(ii) To direct the Respondent No.3 to re-adjudicate the
appellate proceedings by considering the submissions made by
this petitioner; and/or
(iii) To declare the impugned Order in Original No.92/2024-
25-Adjn (Supdt) GST dated 13.02.2025 and also issued Form
DRC 07 vide ref. No. ZD360225053160V dated 20.02.2025
confirming the demand by the 1st Respondent under the
provisions of CGST/TGST Act, 2017 as being in violation of
Section 16(2)(c) and 16(2)(aa) of GST Act, 2017 being in
violation of Principles of natural justice, without authority and
jurisdiction and in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of
the Constitution of India, and to consequently set aside any
action taken pursuant thereto including recovery proceedings if
any and pass such further or other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; and/or
(iv) To declare that provisions of Section 16(2)(c) of CGST
Act, 2017 and corresponding TGST provisions and the rules
made thereunder is illegal, arbitrary and irrational as well as
violative of Article 14, 19 and 265 r/w 300A of the Constitution
of India (ii) to declare that Petitioner is not liable for defaults of
their suppliers; in the interest of justice, equity and in
accordance with the scheme of the GST Acts and pass such
other order or orders as the Hon'ble High Court may deem fit
and proper in the circumstances of the case; (or) in the
alternative to pass a writ, order or direction, reading down the
relevant extract of Section 16(2)(c) of CGST Act and
corresponding TGST Act, 2017."
3. On 18.02.2026, the matter was adjourned to enable the learned
Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC to obtain instructions.
4. On instructions, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC
submits that the appellate authority did not grant any opportunity of
hearing as the appeal was time barred.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
also questioned the vires of Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and
Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, "the Act") in the present writ petition.
Therefore, the writ petition may be entertained on the question of vires
also.
6. However, we find that the petitioner amongst the number of
reliefs sought quashing of the rejection of the appeal in Form APL-02,
dated 13.11.2025 by respondent No.3 as being in violation of Section
107(8), 107(11) and 107(12) of the Act, and also in violation of
principles of natural justice. Petitioner has not approached this Court
upon issuance of the show cause notice or after passing the order-in-
original assailing the vires of Section 16(2)(c) and 16(2)(aa) of the Act.
Petitioner has also relied upon the order passed by this Court in
W.P.No.34650 of 2025, wherein, in similar circumstances, the matter
was remanded to the appellate authority to pass fresh order in
accordance with law after granting an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner.
7. We are therefore of the view that the question of vires of Section
16(2)(c) and 16(2)(aa) of the Act can be raised after exhausting the
appeal remedy if the petitioner is aggrieved. Therefore, the impugned
order in appeal dated 13.11.2025 is set aside. The matter is remitted to
the appellate authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after
granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Needless to say that if
the petitioner is aggrieved with the order passed in appeal, it is at liberty
to avail appropriate remedy in law and also raise the issue of vires of
Section 16(2)(c) and 16(2)(aa) of the Act in a writ proceedings.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite filing of
an appeal before respondent No.3 by making statutory pre-deposit on
21.09.2025, the attachment of its bank account dated 03.09.2025 has not
been revoked. It is therefore, observed that during pendency of the
appeal on remand, if the petitioner has already paid the pre-deposit,
there shall be a stay of the order-in-original till disposal of the appeal.
9. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
__________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
__________________________
G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J
Date: 30.03.2026
ES
