Shri Vishal Durgadas Jaiwant vs. The Joint Commissioner Oc Commercial Taxes (Appeals)

The petitioner challenging the order under Section 73 of the CGST and SGST Act, 2017 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer-respondent No.2, preferred an appeal before the appellate authority-respondent No.1 under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, which came to be dismissed as barred by limitation. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay in preferring the appeal was neither wilful nor deliberate. An affidavit explains for the reasons for delay was filed along with appeal. However, the appellate authority failed to consider the same. It is contended that the petitioner has claimed Input Tax Capital on basis of genuine tax invoice and was under bona fide believe that HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1248 the discrepancy would be by rectified by the supplier, which M/s benefit extended under Circular bearing No.183/15/2022- GST dated 27.12.2022, as considered in the case of M/s appearing for the respondents-State submits that as limitation is concerned, Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 prescribe a mandatory and with a further condonable period of only 30 days and since the appeal was filed beyond the 12022 KHC 37970 22022 KHC 38176 3 W.P.No.16175 of 2022 dated 06.01.2023 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1248 said period, the appellate authority was justified in dismissing the appeal as time barred.

Having given an anxious consideration to the submissions and the material on record, the reasons for delay, as set out by the petitioner while filing an appeal under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 at paragraph No.5, is as under: • I had claimed Input Tax Credit (ITC) based on a genuine tax invoice dated 06.02.2020 issued by M/s. Mahavir Soft Image (India) Ltd. • Subsequently, it came to my knowledge that the said supplier failed to upload the invoice in GSTR- 1, which led to a mismatch and consequent rejection of ITC. • I issued legal notice to the supplier on 25.11.2021, urging compliance, but received no response. • I was under the genuine and reasonable belief that the issue could be resolved at the supplier’s end and thus inadvertently delayed in filing the appeal. • Additionally, due to limited awareness procedural requirements, and absence of professional legal HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1248 support at that time, I could not act within the prescribed time.

The above reasons disclose that the petitioner had acted under bona fide believe that the mismatch in the Input Tax Credit would be rectified by the supplier, that a legal notice was issued to the supplier, and that the delay was occasioned due to lack of professional assistance and limited awareness of procedural requirements. The explanation, in the present facts, cannot be said to be lacking bona fides.

No doubt Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 prescribes the period within an appeal to be filed. However, adopting a justice oriented approach, particularly when the justification offered is reasonable and when the matter deserves consideration on merits, in the peculiar facts and circumstance of this case the delay in preferring the appeal deserves to be condoned and the matter requires consideration on merits by the appellate authority having regard to the circler issued by the GST council, namely HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1248 dated 27.12.2022 and Circular bearing No. No.193/05/2023-GST dated 17.07.2023. 9. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The order in appeal in 27.06.2025 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes-respondent No.1 is hereby set aside. iii.