WP/24079/2026 of YEDLA RAMANA Vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX on 23 August 2026

1. The Deputy Commissi Visakhapatnam GST A

2. The Commissioner of (Appeals), Guntur, Ce Revenue Building, Rin

3. Union of India, Depar (Revenue), North Bloc Counsel for the Petitioner Mr.Anil Bezawada Counsel for the Responde G.P. for Commercial Tax

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE 24th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT E SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR PETITION No : 24079 of 2026 No.43-53-6/1, Flat No.5, ayapalem, Visakhapatnam – 530016. ...PE AND ioner of Central Tax, Audit Circle, Visakhapatnam – 530 035. f Central Tax (Appeals), O/o.The Com entral Tax and Customs, D.No.3-30-1 ng Road, Guntur-522 007. rtment of Revenue, Represented by its ck, New Delhi. ...RESPON r: ent(S): x

TITIONER

mmissioner 5, Central Secretary NDENT(S):

The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya)

1. Petitioner, claiming to be a Priest and Founder-cum-President of Sri Sri Sri Aadhishakti Nagadevi Alaya Trust, Visakhapatnam, filed the present writ petition against the orders passed by the authorities under G.S.T.(Central Tax) Act, i.e., respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein.

2. As per the brief averments in the writ affidavit, petitioner conducted various religious ceremonies in the name of the said Trust. During the financial year 2016-17, he received certain amounts from individual devotees for conduct of poojas and other religious ceremonies in the Temple. He filed Income Tax Returns by disclosing revenue from the services rendered / conduct of religious ceremonies, amounting to Rs.18,92,460/-. Respondent No.1 issued a Notice to show cause as to why an amount of Rs.2,83,869/- towards Service Tax payable for the Financial Year 2016-17 shall not be demanded and interest thereon along with penalty shall not be imposed under the provisions of the Finance Act. Reply dated 08.11.2021 was submitted and thereafter 1st respondent passed an Order dated 22.01.2024 confirming the demand as also interest and penalty thereon proposed in the Show Cause Notice. Appeal against the said order was rejected by the 2nd respondent / appellate authority on the premise that the same was filed beyond the condonable period of one month.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Smt.Santhi Chandra, learned Senior Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submitted that 1st respondent / original authority passed Order dated 22.01.2024 without considering the detailed Reply dated 08.11.2021 to the Show Cause Notice. Further, that the said order was passed with a delay of more than two years from the date of issuance of the Show Cause Notice, therefore barred by limitation and liable to be set aside on the said grounds. He submitted that against the order of the 1st respondent, appeal could not be filed within the time stipulated by the Statute owing to ill-health of the petitioner and without considering the reasons, 2nd respondent / appellate authority rejected the appeal though the delay in fling the same is only 122 days. He submitted that in view of the merits of the case set out in the writ petition, order of the appellate authority may be set aside; and a direction may be issued for passing an order afresh, by examining the various contentions raised by the writ petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel for C.B.I.C., made submissions to sustain the orders under challenge.

6. Considered the submissions made and perused the material on record.

7. At the outset, it may be pertinent to mention that the 1st respondent passed the Order-in-original dated 22.01.2024 after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Before the said authority, it would appear that the petitioner did not produce any documents relating to religious service viz., Pooja / ceremonies. Be that as it may. Insofar as delay in preferring appeal against the order of the 1st respondent is concerned, the argument advanced was that the petitioner due to his ill health could not file appeal within the time stipulated by the Statute. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner had drawn our attention to the material papers filed along with the writ petition. As sufficient reasons exist, he contended that the 1st appellate authority failed to consider the same let alone condoning the delay.

8. However, we are not persuaded by the submission made by the learned counsel with reference to material pertaining to petitioner’s ill health. To substantiate his version, which caused the delay in filing the appeal before the 2nd respondent, petitioner filed only two documents i.e., Medical / Doctor’s Prescription dated 01.03.2024 and an undated Certificate (marked as Ex.P3), the neat copy of which (Page No.73) reads as follows: “Bhavya Heart Care Centre To Whom So Ever it may concern

This is to certify that Y.Ramana, He is suffering from ischemic heart disease and congestive heart failure. Since March to June 2024, he is under my care and treatment under bed rest. Dr.xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx.”

9. It is settled Law that petitioner invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has to approach this Court with clean hands. Petitioner might have consulted Doctor on 01.03.2024, but undated Certificate relied on by the petitioner, and the insertions as mentioned above, which are not found in the original, leads to the conclusion that the petitioner approached this Court with unclean hands. Notably, in the Original (Ex.P3, page No.72), ‘2024’ was not found, but inserted in the neat copy. Such an attempt on the part of the petitioner, in our opinion, is nothing but misleading the Court, which cannot be countenanced.

10. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, it is a fit case to impose costs.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- payable to the A.P.High Court Legal Services Committee, Amaravati, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

_____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Date: 24.08.2026 BLV

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

W.P.No.24079 of 2026 Dt: 24.08.2026

BLV