M/s.Vishvaretah Enterprises Vs The Superintendent of… — GST and Indirect Tax | Telangana HC (2026)

M/s.Vishvaretah Enterprises Vs The Superintendent of… — GST and Indirect Tax | Telangana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with the liberty granted: to approach the appellate authority within two weeks with statutory pre-deposit and a delay condonation application, taking all available grounds of law and facts in the memo of appeal; the appellate authority to consider the delay and, if satisfied, decide the appeal on merits; and no coercive steps pursuant to the Garnishee Notice in Form GST DRC-13 dated 21.10.2025 during the two-week period. No order as to costs; miscellaneous applications pending, if any, stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the levy of tax, penalty and fee under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Acts 2017 in the order-in-original dated 12.02.2025 and the Summary of Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 24.02.2025, without providing an opportunity of being heard, violates principles of natural justice (pleaded; not adjudicated on merits). +5 more

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner was inclined to prefer an appeal, the Court, without getting into the merits of the contentions raised, allowed liberty to approach the appellate authority within a period of two weeks with statutory pre-deposit and a delay condonation application.

Key takeaways

The petitioner may take all such grounds of law and facts in the memo of appeal as are available to it.ratio¶55
The appellate authority will consider the question of delay taking into account the aforesaid facts and circumstances and, if satisfied with the explanation for delay, shall proceed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law.ratio¶55
During the period of two weeks within which the petitioner has to file the appeal, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the Garnishee Notice in Form GST DRC-13 dated 21.10.2025.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin), W.P. No. 8090 of 2026, decided 06.04.2026. M/s. Vishvaretah Enterprises (through its proprietor Mr. Suresh Mettu) challenged, under Article 226, the order-in-original dated 12.02.2025 and the Summary of Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 24.02.2025 passed by the Superintendent of Central Tax, Range-III, Malkajgiri Division, levying tax, penalty and fee under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Acts 2017 for tax period 2020-21, pleading (i) denial of opportunity of hearing, (ii) breach of the three-month gap required by Section 73(2) between the SCN summary dated 27.11.2024 (alleged unsigned Form GST DRC-01) and the order, and (iii) non-service of ASMT-10 and Form GST DRC-01A contemplated under Section 142(1A); a rectification application was also stated to be undisposed, and a Garnishee Notice in Form GST DRC-13 dated 21.10.2025 had been issued to the petitioner's bank (State Bank of India). The Court expressed no view on the merits: it allowed the petitioner liberty to approach the appellate authority within two weeks with statutory pre-deposit and a delay condonation application, taking all grounds of law and fact available in the memo of appeal; directed that the appellate authority consider the delay and, if satisfied with the explanation, proceed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law; and held that during the two-week period no coercive steps be taken pursuant to the Garnishee Notice in Form GST DRC-13 dated 21.10.2025. Writ petition disposed of; no costs; miscellaneous applications closed. No precedent was cited or relied upon.

[³⁴⁸⁸¹

ll i i

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THESTATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF^APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE^{THE CHIEFJUSTICE SRt APARESH KUMARSINGH} AND THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICEG.M. MOHIUDDIN}

WRIT PETITIO N NO: 8090^{OF 2026}

Between:

M/s. Vishvaretah Enterprises,^{32-67185119,R.K.Puram,-Malkajgiri-s00 056'} iiiLdcnrt-Mitiilgiti oist'rict.^{Fiep. by its ProprietorMr.SureshMettu, aged} about 45^years, Occ.Business

...PETITIONER

AND

't. The Suoerintendent of Central Tax, Range-lll, Malkajgiri Division' Aditya Towers, Old Bowenpally,^{Secunderabad-s0001 1.}

Z. ftre Aiiiitint Comririssioner^{of Central Tax,Malkajgiri Division,.Hyderabad.} g. tne Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance' Ilorth tslock' New Delhi^110001.

The Central Board of^{lndirect Taxes and Customs,} Bep.^{by-its Chairman'} . - Ministry of Finance, Department^{of Revenue, North Block, central secretanat,} New Delhi-100⁰⁰¹

S. fhe^g;nin trllnager,^{State Bank of lndia, NeredmetX Road, Main Road,} Secunderabad 500 094

...REspoNDENTs

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be} pleased to issue wirt of Mandamus^{or any other appropriatewrit or order or} Direction declaring

(1) the action of the^{1st Respondenlin passing the order-in-original,dated} l2l)2l212sandtheSummaryoftheOrderinFormGSTDRC-07,dated 241O2t2O25,^{levyingTax, Penalty and Fee under Section 73 of the oGST/SGST} Acts 2017, without^{providing an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner,is} contrary to the^{provisions of the Acts and is not valid in the eye of law andin} violation of Principles^{of Natural Justice and Rule of Law}

(2) the action of the 1st Respondent^{in issuingthe Summaryof Show Cause} Notice, dated 27.11.2024^{and passing the summary of the order in Form GST}

i rl

rl

DRC-07, daled 2410212025^{withoutmaintaining3 months gap, is contraryto} Section 73(2) of the CGST/SGST^{Acl' 2017}

(3) the action of the 1st Respondent^{in not serving ASMT-10and also Form GST} DRC-OIA as contemptated^{under Section142(1A) of the CGST/S6ST Act 2017,is} not valid in the eye of law

(4) the action of the 1st Respondent^{in issuingthe summary of Show cause} Notice in Form GST^{DRC-o1, dated2711112024without signature either physically} or digitally is nonest^{in the eye of law and consequently set aside the order-in-} Original, dated^{1210212025, the Order,dated 2410212025and the Summaryof the} order in Form GST DRC-07,^{daled 24t0212025,for the tax period 202o-21 under} the CGST/SGST Acts^{201 7, as null and void.}

lA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition,the Highcourt may be pleasedto} suspend the operation of^{the order-in-original,dated1210212025,the order, dated} 24t0212O25 and the Summary of the^{Order in Form GSTDRC-07,dated} 24tO212025^passed by the^{1st Respondent,for the tax period 2o2o-21 under the} CGST/SGST Acts 2017,^{pending disposal of the above writ Petition, as otherwise,} the Petitioner will be^put to^{severe loss and hardship.}

lA NO: 2 OF 2026

Petition under section 151^{CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition, the Highcourt may be pleased to direct} the 2nd Respondent to revoke^{the Garnishee Notice issued in Form GST DRC-13'} dated 21110t2o25 to the 5th^{RespondentBank, forthwith, for the tax period 2020} 21 under the CGST/SGST^{Acts 2017, pending disposal of the above writ Petition,} as otherwise, the Petitioner^{will be put to severe loss and hardship}

i I ,l

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOHAMMED RAFI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l,2 &^{4: SRI DOMINIC FERNANOES,SENIOR} sc FoR cBtc Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUW SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.5: -

The Court made the following: ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA ATHYDERABAI)

THE HON'BLE TIIE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH K.UMAR SINGII

AND

THE HON'BLE SRIJU STICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WR]TPETITIO N No.8090 of 2026

DATED: 06.04.202b

Between:

M/s. Vishvaretah Enterprises, 32-67 /85 / 19, R.K.Puram, Malkajgiri-500 056, Medchal-Malkaj giri District, Rep. by its Proprietor Mr. Suresh Mettu, aged about 45 years, Occ: Business

Petitioner

AND

.f he Superintendent of Central Tax, ltunge-l I I, Malkajgiri Division, Aclitl a^'lowers, OId Bowenpally, Secunderabad-500 01 I & 4 others

Respondents

ORDER

Heard Mr. Mohammed Rafi, learned counsel appcaring fbr. the petitioner and i!Ir. Dominic Fernandes, leamed Senior Standing counsel tbr Central Board ol' Indircct^-laxes and customs (CBIC) appearing (br rcsponde.nt Nos. l, 2 and 4.

I Petirioner has challenged the order- in-origina r dated I2.02.2025. the Sr*"ar'r of the ortrer in Form GST DRC-07 trated 24.02.2025 levying tax, pcnartl', and l-ee under Section 73 0f the central coods and Services Tax Act

2

I I)r

zllllst^teGoods^{and Services Tax Act' 2Ol7 in the present proceedings' A} pleahasalsobeentakenthatitsrectificationapplicationfiledon24.l|.v025hai not^yet been^disPosedof.

J On this^{issue,leamed Senior StandingCounsel for CBIC wasallowed} time on the^{previous dateto obtain instructions'}

when the^{matter has been takenup today, leamed counsel for the} petitioner^{seeksliberty to approachthe appeltateauthoritywith a delay} condonation^{appticationand uponmakingstaturory pre-deposit to assailthe} order-in-original^{and DRC-07' He submits that the respondentNo'2has issued} Form GST^{DRC-13dated21' 10'2025' Petitioner may be protected till the filing of} the appeal

Leamed^{Senior Standing Counseltor CBIC has not obtained instructions} on the^{pendency of the rectificationapplication' However'he submits thatthe} petitioner^{was at liberty to preler an appcal againstthe order-in-original and} DRC-07^{taking all the groundsas are available inlaw and on facts beforethe} appellate^{authority in respectol the subiect tax period}

In the aforesaid^{facts and circumstances'since the petitioneris inclinedto} prefer an^{appeal,withoutgetting into the merits ol the contentionsraisedby it'} liberty^{is allowed to approachthe appeltate authoritv within a periodof two} weeks with^{statutory pre-deposit and a delay condonationapplication. The}

J

.r/ petitioner rnay take arl such grounds of raw and facts in the memo of appear as are available to it. Needless to say, the appeflate authority wourd consider the question ol delay taking into account the aforesaid facts and circumstances and il he is satislled i.r'ith the explanation for deray, he sha[ proceed to decide the appeal o, r,erits in accordance with law. During the period of two weeks rvithin rvhich the lretitioner has to fire the appeal, no coercive steps be taken against the peritioner pufsuant to the Garnishee Notice in Form GS't DRC- r 3 dated 21 . t0 102-5

1 [''e writ Petition is. accordingry, disposed of with the afbresaid liberty I{orrcver, rirerc shall be no order as to costs.

,lisccllaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed

SD/. A.JAYASREE ASSI srarur Reclsrnan

//TRUE COPY//

To

To i SECTION OFFICER 1 U. Division, Aditya

2 3 ajgiri DiViSiON, Hyderabad fu^{i$flef mtf*+i#t'r'*lm} North Block, New Delhi

4 The Chairman , Cenhal Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs Ministry of

Delhi-100 Finance, De00p1artment of Reve nue, North Block, Central Secretariat. New

J Bank of rndia, Neredrnet X Road, Main Road,

$:fi'fJ;[Hi38?liolt""

t) 7 r.%,-y3l,ooo==.o,

I fl lqf [f ,3jltr3iltH,z,^H3,i.isrffi 9 ffi 33 tosR-r oorrtlrrurC FERNANDES, sENtoR sc FoR CBtC topucl

PSKTKS

,- -4+l-

HIGH COURT

DATED:061041202G

ORDER

WP.No.8090 of 2026

.< t oFiHTli4)<br>'Gr,
o
(J
^<br>,9 02 ttAt ?02i, t:r.
* Tctl!f-a .95)

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

^r{ 6,)t' ../ \g\r.,b