Shri Krishna Industries Through Its Partner Ajit Navandar vs. The Commissioner CGST And Central Excise And Others

Original PDF →

WP/1531/2025HC BombayGSTCNR HCBM03004446202531 January 2025Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S. G. MEHARE,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHAILESH P. BRAHME2 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

Facts

Shri Krishna Industries, through its partner Ajit Navandar, filed a writ petition challenging orders dated May 27, 2023, and December 17, 2024. The petitioner's appeal was initially decided solely on the ground of delay. The writ petition highlighted reasons for the delay in submitting returns, which were stated to be similar to those in the case of M/s. Sambhaji Multi Services vs. The Commissioner State GST and another. The revenue, represented by the Commissioner CGST and Central Excise and others, was made respondent. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute were not explicitly stated in the provided text.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition partly, subject to a condition. The impugned orders dated May 27, 2023, and December 17, 2024, were quashed and set aside. The proceedings were remitted back to Respondent No. 3/Authority. The petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 5,000/- with Respondent No. 3/Authority on or before February 7, 2025, and appear before the authority on the same date with tax refunds for the period in question. Respondent No. 3/Authority was directed to consider the record by following due procedure of law and pass an appropriate order, subject to conditions permitted by rules. This exercise was to be completed within 30 days. The ratio decidendi is that where the reasons for delay in filing returns are similar to a precedent and the petitioner complies with certain conditions, the matter can be remitted for fresh consideration on merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal by the petitioner should be condoned, considering the reasons provided in the writ petition and their similarity to a previously decided case? (Question of law/mixed law and fact) The petitioner argued that the delay in submitting returns was for reasons mentioned in the writ petition and was similar to the grounds considered in M/s. Sambhaji Multi Services vs. The Commissioner State GST and another (Writ Petition No. 393/2024). The petitioner contended that for these reasons, the delay should not be a bar to the appeal being considered on merits. The revenue did not present any arguments as recorded in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

1 915.WP-1531-2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 915 WRIT PETITION NO. 1531 OF 2025 SHRI KRISHNA INDUSTRIES THROUGH ITS PARTNER AJIT NAVANDAR VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE AND OTHERS ….. Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Alok Sharma And R S Indani Advocate for Respondens : Mr. A.G.Talhar … CORAM : S. G. MEHARE AND SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ. DATE : 31st JANUARY 2025 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The appeal of the petitioner has been decided solely on the ground of delay. 3. Issue notice to respondents. Learned counsel Mr.Talhar waives service of notice for all respondents. 4. By consent heard finally. There was delay in preferring the appeal. However, the delay has not been considered for the reasons mentioned in the writ petition. The delay caused in submitting the returns in that case is similar to issue decided in the matter of M/s. Sambhaji Multi Services vs. The Commissioner State GST and another in Writ Petition No. 393/2024. Therefore, for the reasons mentioned in the said judgment, we pass following order : 2025:BHC-AUG:2939-DB 2 915.WP-1531-2025.doc

ORDER a)

The writ petition is partly allowed on the condition that the petitioner has to deposit Rs.5000/-(Five Thousand) with respondent no.3/Authority on or before 07.02.2025 the impugned orders dated 27.05.2023 and 17.12.2024 stands quashed and set-aside. b)

The proceedings are remitted to the respondent no.3/authority. d)

The petitioner shall appear before the respondent no.3/Authority on 07.02.2025 alongwith tax refunds for the period in question. e)

Respondent No.3/authority would consider record by following due procedure of law and pass an appropriate order on such conditions as rules may permit. f)

The above exercise would be completed within 30 days. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.] [ S. G. MEHARE, J.] vsj..

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