High CourtsDivision Bench(2026) 08 TEL CK 5814

M/s. Kodati Thirupathi Rao vs The State Tax Officer & Ors.

Telangana High Court · Decided on 7 August 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Aparesh Kumar Singh, C.J · G.M. Mohiuddin, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 25974 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

9 paragraphs · 348 words

Heard Mr. B. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader appears for State Tax.

2.

The writ petition has been preferred against the assessment order and summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 29.12.2025 passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the financial year 2021-22 by respondent No.1 imposing tax, interest and penalty on the petitioner.

3.

The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that it has come to know about the liability only when it received a call from the department for recovery of the tax.

4.

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, the appellate authority may be directed to consider the appeal sympathetically.

5.

Learned counsel for the respondent Department submits that the petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned order 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.

Therefore, 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 of 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 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.

8.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.