Mahantgouda vs. The Joint Commissioner
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL)
Petitioner is before this Court seeking following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/ order/ direction quashing or setting aside the impugned rejection order dated 06.09.2025, passed by the 1st respondent in GST:AP:197/2025-26 (Annexure-D) by condoning the delay of 29 days in preferring the appeal before 1st respondent against the impugned adjudication order dated 11.02.2025 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7386 vide reference No.ZD290225059025G for the sum of Rs.52,69,810/- (tax + interest + penalty) passed by 2nd respondent;
(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/ order / direction to the 1st respondent to restore the appeal GST:AP:197/2025- 26 and to entertain the same in accordance with law; and (iii) Grant such other order or direction as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Petitioner is carrying on the business of civil contract having GST No.29BDDPP8286N1ZJ. Proceedings under Section 73 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Act, 2017 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘KGST Act’) was initiated by the respondent No.2 for the financial year 2020-2021 on the premise of they having found certain discrepancies. By order dated 11.02.2025 respondent No.2 called upon the petitioner to pay the tax to the tune of Rs.52,69,810/- together with interest and penalty. Petitioner filed appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CGST Act’] before the respondent No.
Respondent No.1 dismissed the said appeal vide order HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7386 dated 06.09.2025, holding that the appeal was filed beyond the period of 120 days of limitation and there was a delay of 29 days.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection of the appeal based on the technicality of same having been filed beyond the period of limitation has caused prejudice to the petitioner and that though an appeal is provided under Section 108 of the CGST Act, no appellate tribunal is constituted. Therefore, he submits that the only option available to him is to approach this Court.
He also relies upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Sri T.V. W.P.No.21725/2024. The co-ordinate bench of this Court in the similar nature of the circumstances condoning the delay has set aside the order passed by the first HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7386 respondent therein and has remitted the matter for fresh consideration on merits.
Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents does not dispute that this Court had indeed under similar circumstances allowed the writ petition by setting aside the order passed by the first respondent and remitted the matter for fresh consideration on merits. However, he insists that such liberty be reserved only upon the petitioner complying with statutory requirement of deposit as required under the law.
Submission is taken on record.
In the light of the order already passed by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.21725/2024, this Court do not find any reason not to grant similar relief to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order at Annexure-D is set aside. The matter is remitted to respondent No.1 to proceed further on merits. Petitioner shall comply with the other statutory HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7386 requirement for the purpose of prosecuting the appeal such as making statutory deposit. Appeal shall be heard only thereafter. (M.G.S.KAMAL) JUDGE SWK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10 CT:PK
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.