Chandrashekar Gopaldas Chabada vs. The Joint Commissioner Of
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER REFERENCE NO.ZD290523020836A DATED 23.05.2023 PASSED BY VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16386 RESPONDENT NO.2 (ANNEXURE-E1),D) GRANT COSTS OF THIS PETITION AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: “A. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, quashing the impugned order dated 11.08.2025 passed by Respondent No.1 in Appeal No. GST-250/2023-24/B- 759 (Annexure-H),
B. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent no.1 to condone the delay in filing the appeal and hear/dispose of the appeal on merits expeditiously,
C. In the alternative, hear the Petitioner’s appeal on merits in exercise of extraordinary juri iction and set aside the adjudication order reference no.ZD290523020836A dated 23.05.2023 passed by Respondent no.2 (Annexure-E1).
D. Grant costs of this petition and E. Grant such other relief(s) as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Heard Sri. Adit Chandangoudar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and T. Hanumareddy, learned AGA for respondent-State. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16386
Learned counsel appearing for the parties in unison would submit that, the issue in the lis stands covered by judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.103642/2025, disposed off on 25th November 2025. The Coordinate Bench of this Court held as follows: 1. “The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:
“1. Issue a writ or a direction or any other order in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order bearing No. Appeal No. 260/2024/BM/GST dated 31.12.2024 passed by the Respondent No. 2 vide ANNEXURE-D.
Issue a Writ or a Direction or any other Order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Authorities to consider and allow the Appeal bearing No.260/2024/BM/GST vide Annexure-D.
To pass such orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case as in duty bound the Petitioner shall ever pray act of kindness in the interest of justice and equity.”
Heard Shri Rakesh S.Hattikatagi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Girish Hulmani, learned counsel appearing for respondents.
It transpires that due to inadvertence, the petitioner-assessee has availed excess input tax credit. The respondent No. 3 thus issues a show cause notice dated 18.08.2023 calling upon the petitioner to pay the differential tax liability. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 passes an ex-parte order-in-original against the petitioner. The petitioner then prefers an appeal against the said HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16386 order-in-original, which comes to be dismissed on the ground of delay.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay in filing the appeal is attributable to the late uploading and communication of Form DRC-07 under the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, which is beyond the control of the petitioner.
In identical circumstances, this Court, in a plethora of cases, has set aside such orders and directed the appellate authority to answer the issue on its merit. I deem it appropriate to follow suit. This Court in Writ Petition No.21592 of 2025, disposed on 14.08.2025, allowed a petition challenging the dismissal of appeal on the ground of delay, and held as follows:
“5. Learned counsel for the respondents now submits that it would be posted on the portal and there can be no contention that the email of the petitioner was not functioning, since the portal would display the notices so issued. The learned counsel however submits that he filed an appeal after coming to know of the order that was passed against him before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the GST Act. The said appeal comes to be rejected on the ground that it is filed with a delay of 45 days beyond the 90 days period that was condonable of a threshold of 30 days. In all, the limitation that is ascribed in Section 107 is that the appeal should be filed within 120 days to the maximum. Since the appeal was filed with an application seeking condonation of delay of 45 days and that delay was not condonable at the hands of the Appellate Authority in the light of the statute, the appeal comes to be rejected. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
The contention of the petitioner is that he has not received the Show Cause Notice and therefore, no reply was submitted. All these were projected before the Appellate Authority. In the light of the submission that the petitioner did not receive the Show Cause Notice even and had not submitted his reply, the matter though would be remitted to the Appellate Authority as per the challenge, the matter should now go back to the stage at which the reply to the Show Cause Notice has to be HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16386 submitted by the petitioner. As the contention for the delay is that he was not aware of the notice at all, the petitioner therefore now shall submit a reply to the Show Cause Notice within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and the authority shall pass necessary orders upon consideration of the reply to the Show Cause Notice. All other remedies to the petitioner subsequent to the said order shall remain open.
The perusal at the averments made in the petition would indicate that the petitioner had some justification for the delay being accrued of 45 days beyond 120 days, as the petitioner was not aware of the proceedings. In that light, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the appeal on its merit that is now filed, without reference to delay, subject to the payment of costs of ₹25,000/- payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The costs shall be deposited within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. In the light of what is aforesaid, the following: ORDER [i] Writ petition is allowed in part. [ii] The Order dated 29.04.2025 bearing NO.ZD290425097874N u/s 107(11) of the KGST Act, 2017 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)-8, Bangalore, vide Annexure-E stands quashed. [iii] The Order dated 22.12.2023 bearing No.CTO/ LGSTO-040/ DRC-07/ R2AvsR3B/ 25/ 2023-24 passed under section 73 of the KGST Act, 2017/Order under section 73 read with Section 6 of the CGST Act, 2017/Order under Section 20 of the IGST Act,2017, vide Annexure-B, stands quashed. [iv] The matter is remitted back to the hands of the Appellate Authority to answer the appeal on its merit, without insistence on the delay in the light of the observations made in the course of the order and production of the receipt of payment of costs as directed.” HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16386
In the light of the issue standing answered by the afore-quoted order of this Court, I deem it appropriate to pass the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned order bearing Appeal No.260/ 2024/ BM/ GST, dated 31.12.2024, passed by respondent No.2, vide Annexure-D stands quashed. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the hands of the Appellate Authority to answer the appeal on its merit, without insistence on the delay in the light of the observations made in the course of the order and production of the receipt of payment of costs as directed.”
In the light of the issue standing covered by the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (supra), on all its fours and on the same reasons, the subject petition also stands disposed. (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE
AC/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39
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.