TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 634
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2024 pertaining to the tax period April, 2019 - March, 2020 passed under Section 73 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is under challenge primarily on the ground that it is barred by limitation having been passed beyond the cut-off date i.e., 31.08.2024 for passing orders in respect of the proceedings for tax period 2019-20. Petitioner approached the appellate authority also, but by impugned order dated 23.02.2026 in Form GST APL-02, the same was dismissed. Both the orders are under challenge. The impugned order was passed on the basis of best judgment assessment as petitioner had not responded to the show cause notice and file any reply. 3. Pursuant to the time granted on 21.04.2026,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ning to R-I circle and 29 orders pertaining to Vanasthalipuram-I circle if was 11:59 P.M of 31.08.2024. however, the order in respect of petitioner could not be uploaded due to change of day from Saturday to Sunday. Further the Sunday being the public holiday the order pertaining to petitioner could not be uploaded on 01.09.2024 and as such on the immediate next working day i.e., on Monday i.e., 02.09.2024 the order of the petitioners were uploaded in the GST common Web Portal. The non uploading of order of the petition on or before 31.08.2024 is neither willful nor wanton but for the above stated reason." 4. The counter affidavit further states that the show cause notice quantified the discrepancies noticed in GSTR-09, GSTR-3B and conne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounter affidavit, which are extracted hereunder: "61. It is further submitted that a subsequent explanation dated 25.07.2025, now relied upon by the petitioner, states that the differential IGST ITC of Rs.1,94,25,928/- represented import IGST paid on imported capital goods/machinery and that the same was not reflected in Table 8A/GSTR-2A. The said explanation further states that the ITC treated as ineligible related mainly to inward supplies such as works contract / electrical goods / plywood / hardware and allied items used for installation of the imported machinery. Thus, according to the later explanation, the core difference is import IGST ITC and installation-related ITC, and not fictitious credit. 62. It is submitted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for installation of the imported machinery. According to the later explanation, the core difference is import IGST ITC and installation-related ITC and not fictitious credit. The respondents in the above paragraphs have further submitted that prima facie and subject to verification of the subsequently produced bills of entry and supporting invoices, on the major issue there is no revenue loss since the petitioner now claims that the tax component was import IGST already paid through bills of entry and that the major inward supplies treated as ineligible were used for installation of the imported capital goods. Learned Special Government Pleader for the State Tax at the end submits that even though the order has been uploaded on 02.09.2024 ....