High CourtsDivision Bench(2026) 07 TEL CK 1450

M/s. K P Textiles and Garments vs The Superintendent Of Central Tax & Anr.

Telangana High Court, Hyderabad · Decided on 30 July 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Aparesh Kumar Singh, C.J · G.M. Mohiuddin, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 24716 of 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 366 words

Heard Mr. V.Nagendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), appearing for respondent No.1.

2.

This writ petition has been preferred against the Show Cause Notice dated 25.11.2024, the Order-in-Original dated 19.02.2025, along with Form GST DRC-07 dated 19.02.2025, passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the tax period April, 2020 to March, 2021.

3.

The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that the demand confirmed was beyond the scope of the show cause notice and also on the ground that the impugned show cause notice was unsigned.

4.

However, after some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned order-in-original and Form GST DRC-07. He submits that some delay might have been occurred in approaching the appellate authority and therefore, he may be directed to consider it sympathetically.

5.

Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC submits that the petitioner was at liberty to prefer an appeal against the order-in-original and Form GST DRC-07 taking all the grounds as are available to it in law and on facts before the appellate authority in respect of the subject tax period.

6.

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.

7.

Accordingly, we grant liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal within a period of two weeks with statutory pre-deposit and a delay condonation application. The petitioner may take all such grounds in law and on 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 facts and circumstances of the case and if it is satisfied on the point of delay, proceed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law.

8.

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.