AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. D. Ramakrishna, learned counsel appears for the petitioner. Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax appears for the respondents.
The writ petition has been preferred with the following prayer:
"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the petitioner herein prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ for order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of "Mandamus" declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 is passing order in Appeal No. S/187/2023-24/GST vide order No.ZD3611240015557 dated 2-11-2024 confirming the assessment order passed by the Respondent No.1 bearing No. SCN ARN No. AD3611210161620 dated 14-12-2023 including the demand for penalty as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and it is in violate of principle of natural justice, and without appreciating the facts on record and contrary to Rules and unconstitutional and set aside the Appeal No. S/187/2023-24/GST vide order No. ZD3611240015557 dated 2-11-2024 issued by the 2nd respondent confirming the assessment order passed by the 1st respondent in SCN ARN No. AD3611210161620 dated 14-12-2023 including imposing of penalty against the petitioner in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders as Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
A Memo dated 03.08.2026 has been filed after the previous order dated 30.07.2026 containing email address to IDFC First Bank Limited.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by this email, the respondent authority has directed the petitioner's bank to place a lien of Rs.9,60,000/- on its account.
However, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax submits that the email is not in the nature of any garnishee notice and no opinion can be formed that the petitioner's account has been kept on lien based upon any garnishee notice of the Proper Officer.
However, after some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned order. He submits that some delay might have been occurred in approaching the appellate authority and therefore, it may be directed to consider it sympathetically.
Learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax submits that the petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned order taking all the grounds as are available in law and on facts before the appellate authority in respect of the subject tax period.
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.
Therefore, we grant liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned order 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 taking into account the aforesaid facts and circumstances and if it is satisfied on the point of delay, proceed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.