WP/39071/2025 of M/s.Global Packaging Solutions Vs The State of Telangana, on 5 February 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P,SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 39071 OF 2025 ...PETITIONER Between: AND

M/s.Global Packaging Solutions, Plot No.2, Sy No.177lB and 17BlC; Kompally, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana - 500014 Represented by its Partner. Sri.Mohammed Osman Ali Ahad The State of Telangana, Represented by its Secretary, Commercial Tax Department, Govt. of Telangana, Hyderabad. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes., Telangana State. Hyderabad

3. The Joint Commissioner (ST), Hyderabad Rural Division. 6th Floor, Gaganvihar Building, Opp. Gandhi Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad-, 500001

4. The State Tax Officer, Malkajgiri - Circle lll, Hyderabad Division, Malkajgiri, Saroor Nagar, Hyderabad ...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 an appropriate'Writ more in the Nature of Writ of Mandamus de'claring the action of the Respondent No.3 in not entertaining the Petition dated 06/10/2025 to reopen the Appeal No.S/2412020-2021-VAT dated 3010812022, to substantiate the claim of the Petitioner non to levy the penalty on VAT for the period 2015-2017 without considering the grounds raised in the Appeal as being arbitrary and illegal and violating Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 to forthwith restore the Appeal No.Sl24l2O20-2021-VAT dated 30/08/2022 to file and to adjudicate the matter on merits on the basis of the 13447 1

documentary evidence to be presented by the Petitioner and issue such other Writ or Order or Direction as.deemed fit and proper in the.circumstances of the case. Petition under Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents, the Respondent No.3, the Appellate Authority , to reopen the case in Appeal No.Sl24l2020-2O21-VAf dated 30/08/2022 enabling the Petitioner to produce the documentary evidence to substantiate that the amounts of the tax were paid by the Petitioner. Cr:unsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH. SAMSON BABU Counsel for the Respondents: SRI T. CHAITANYA KIRAN, AGP RI=PRESENTING SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPECIAL GOVT PLEADER FOR STATE TAX The Court made the following: ORDER lA NO: 1 OF 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERAtsAD THE HONOUITAI}LE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY ANl) THE HONOUIiAI}LE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA W.P.No.3907l OF 2025 05.02.2026 Between: M/s Global Packaging Solutions, Rep. by its Partner Sri Mohammed Osman Ali Ahad . . . Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary, Commercial Tax Deparlment, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad and 3 others . . . Respondents ORDER, (per Hon'blc Sri .lustice P.Satn Koshy) Heard Mr. CLI. Sarnson Babu, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.Chaitanya Kiran, leamed Assistant Government Pleader representing Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for the State Tax for the respondents Perused the record.

2. The instant is a u,rit petition which has been filed assailing the order passed by the Appellate Joint Commissioner dated 30.0tt.2022. contirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 26.03.2020 pertaining to the tax period between April, 2014 and June, 2017.

3. Conscious of the fact that the present writ petition has been filed at a belated stage of around three years, we proceed to decide the rnatter on the aspect of rvhether the petitioner was given a fair opportunitv of' defence. both before the Assessing Officer at the flrst instarrce and belore the Appellate Joint Commissioner thereafter.

4. As u,ould be evident fiorn the fact that the order of the Assessing Ofllcer is that which was passed on 26.03.2020 which was the first lockdown period imposed in the country on account of COVID-19 Pandemic. The notices which were sent by the Assessing Olficer seeking the presence of the petitioner for defending hirnself were also of the period immediately preceding imposition o1- lockdou,n. Subsequently, the petitioner did prefer an appeal belore the Joint Commissioner an* oh perusal of the dates on which the notices were issued to the petitioner to appear before the Appellate Authority for hearing i.e.,02.09.2020, 27 . t 0.2020, | 6. I 2.2020. 27 .04.202 t, 27 .08.2021, 2 1.1 0.202 I and 07.12.2021 and again on 11.02.2022, all these dates of hearing before the Appellate Authority were also under the then prevailing circumstances in the country could have been the reason which prevented the petitioner from entering appearance before the Appeltate Court in defending the case. The whole country was those days that the Appellate Authority's order has been passed on 30.08.2022. The Appellate Authority's order seems to have been passed considering the grounds of merit in not dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution even though the appellant could not have entered appearance before the Appellate Authority. The fact which ought to had been noticed by the Appellate Authority was the ground that the petitioner/appellant had raised for rernitting the matter back to the Assessing Authority for the reason that the Assessing Officer's order was one which was passed during lockdown. If the Appellate Authority would had taken a more pragmatic view considering the relevant dates and the order of the facing dire situation during and post-COVID period and it is during

Assessing Officer itself been one which was passed during lockdown as has been done in a series of similar nature petitions, the consequence would had been for remitting the matter back to the Assessing Authority for re-consideration of the order afresh after giving an opportunity to appear before the authorities. Similar again is the situation before the Appellate Authority also where the dates ol the notice of appearance before the Appellate Court, the dates which are reflected in the preceding paragraph, would show that all those dates were also fixed during the peak COVID period and thereafter the order. was passed on 30.08.2022. Both these orders apparently have been decided without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing under the normal circumstances. Though number of notices had been issued by the two forums, those were either immediately preceding COVID period or during peak COVID period. Therefore, the case for remand has been made out by the petitioner. However, so far as the petitioner having approached this Court only in the year 2025 is concemed, there is undoubtedly certain delay that has occurred on the part of the petitioner, though the petitioner has tried to explain the delay by affixing certain medical documents in respect of the ailment that the partners in the petitioner's establishment have suffered. Though there seems to be ceftain r-r-redical ailments suf-tered by those partners, there is no justification for the delay of three years that had occured in between. There also does not seem to be any bonafide explanation for the continuous period ol three years delay from the date when the irnpugned order was passed. Nonetheless, for the reason that the assessment order as also the order passed by the Appellate Joint Commissioner, both having been passed either during COVID period or irnrnediately alter the COVID period, if we do not permit the petitioner to defend himsetf effectively, the petitioner as such would be rendered remediless in contesting the case. That for the delay of three years, we are of the considered opinion that imposition of penalty in the lorm of costs would meet the ends of J ustrce.

5. Accordingly, we are inclined to allow the writ petition, subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) to the Telangna State Legal Services Authority within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Furlher, on fumishing the receipt of the deposit of the costs amount before the Telangana State Legal Services Authority, the lnatter would stand remitted back to the Assessing Officer i.e., respondent No.4 to consider and decide the matter afresh alter giving the petitioner one opportunity ofdefending the case, if he so wants. We make it clear that the petitioner shall not be given more than one opportunity to delend his case and respondent No.4 is expected to pass the order strictly in accordance with law on its own merits after considering the contentions put-forth.

6. As a consequence, the writ petition stands allowed. The assessment order dated 26.03.2020 as also the order of the Appellate Joint Cornmissioner dated 30.08.2022, both stands set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, rniscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. K. BHAVANI SWAMY A SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER l-o,

1. The Secretary,.Commercial Tax Department, Govt. of Telangana, The State ot lelangana, Hyderabad. _-_

2. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes., Telangana State. Hyderabad

3. The Joint Commissioner (ST), Hyderabad Rural Division. 6th Floor, Gaganvihar Building,Opp. Gandhi Bhavan, Nampalty, HyOeianaA--,'SOOOOt.

4. The state Tax officer, Markajgiri - circle lll, Hyderabad Division, Malkajgiri, Saroor Nagar, Hyderabad

5. One CC to Sri CH. Samson Babu, Advocate IOPUC]

6. Two CCs to the Special GP for State Tax, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad[OUT] Two CD Copies 4P ,,, I

HIGH COURT DATED:0510212026

ORDER

\l/P.No.39071 of 2025 I\LLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS lHE SIa ( ''f \:i. il 2 3 [i:8 2f]?6 rz * .* ae a db @ J