M/S. Kvrecpl Slns Jv vs The Assistant Commissioner State Tax
2026 Latest Caselaw 36 Tel

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

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.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________________________ APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ

______________________________________ G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J

Date: 25.03.2026 KL