BharatTaxGST

Nirmal Kumar Jain vs. The Joint Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Original PDF →
WP/17806/2026HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01039290202616 June 2026Bench: B M SHYAM PRASAD7 pages
For Petitioner: SRI. PRADYUMNA HEJIB., ADVOCATEFor Respondent: SRI.K HEMA KUMAR., AGA

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29253 WP No. 17806 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 17806 OF 2026 (T-RES) BETWEEN: NIRMAL KUMAR JAIN SON OF SHRI GOKUL CHAND JAIN, AGE 69 YEARS HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO 157/23 MAHAVEER MOHALL BEHIND JAIN TEMPLE AJMER, RAJASTHAN - 305001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRADYUMNA HEJIB., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES DAVANGERE DIVISION VANIJYA TERIGE BHAVANA A BLOCK, DEVRAJA URS LAYOUT DAVANAGERE - 577006. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER ENFORCEMENT - 8 VANIJYA THERIGE BHAVAN Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29253 WP No. 17806 of 2026 RAGHAVENDRA COLONY 2ND STAGE BALLARI - 583101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K HEMA KUMAR., AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT TO QUASH ORDER-IN-APPEAL BEARING REF NO. ZD2906250653808 DATED 19.06.2025 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-A); (B) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT TO QUASH ADJUDICATION ORDER IN FORM GST-1 MOV-09 BEARING NO. CTO/ENF- 8/BLY/VIG-06/23-24 DATED 21.07.2023 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-B1. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29253 WP No. 17806 of 2026

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has called in question the Adjudication Order dated 21.07.2023 [Annexure-B] in Form GST-1 MOV-09 and the Order in Appeal dated 19.06.2025 [Annexure-A]. The petitioner's appeal is rejected on the ground of limitation. The question for consideration will be whether this Court must interfere with the Order in appeal restoring the appeal for adjudication for a decision on the petitioner's grievance with the Adjudication Order.

2.

The writ petition is disposed of answering the question in the context of these undisputed facts: [a] The petitioner, upon learning about the Adjudication Order, has filed his Appeal on 03.09.2023 within the time allowed. The petitioner had to offer pre-deposit of 25% of the Demand along with the appeal but has not offered the same. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29253 [b] The petitioner's case is that he bonafide believed that such deposit would not be necessary because he had furnished Bank Guarantee for 100% of the Demand. [c] The first respondent has dismissed the appeal on 25.07.2024 on the ground that the petitioner has not made the pre- deposit. The petitioner has, thereafter on 13.11.2024, made the pre-deposit of 25% and has re-filed the appeal papers on 17.11.2024. [d] The first respondent, while computing the limitation for condonation of delay under Section 107[4] of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act/Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 has excluded the period between 03.09.2023 and 25.07.2024 and has found that the appeal filed on 17.11.2024, despite this exclusion, HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29253 is beyond the time contemplated under Section 107[4] of the Act.

3.

Sri Pradyumna Hejib, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K Hemakumar, a learned Additional Government Advocate, who is called upon to accept notice for the respondents, are heard. This Court must observe that the petitioner, upon making the pre-deposit on 13.11.2024, could have filed an application for restoration of the appeal explaining the bona fides and the time taken in offering the pre- deposit, in which event, it would have been open to the first respondent to consider such application. As against this recourse, the petitioner has re-filed the entire appeal papers.

4.

This Court may not take exception with the first respondent's decision to dismiss the appeal filed on 17.11.2024 on the ground of limitation, but in the circumstances where bonafides are shown and an HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29253 appeal is re-filed instead of making an application, this Court is of the view that the question for consideration must be answered to restore the appeal for due consideration leaving open all contentions to be examined therein.

Hence the following Order answering the question framed in favour of the petitioner. ORDER [a] The writ petition is allowed quashing the Order in Appeal dated 19.06.2025 [Annexure-A] and the Adjudication Order dated 21.07.2023 [Annexure-B] in Form GST-1 MOV-09 restoring the proceedings to the first respondent for reconsideration leaving open all contentions to be examined.

[b] The petitioner, without further notice, shall appear with the first respondent on 20.07.2026. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29253 [c] Further, the appellate Authority is called upon to decide on the appeal expeditiously and in any event within three [3] months from 20.07.2026. (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

AN/-

Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.