[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
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
(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
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
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
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
