M/S G R Enterprises vs. The State Of Karnataka

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: a. “Issue Writ of Certiorari or quashing the impugned order bearing Appeal No.KGST/AP-01/2024-25, dated 18/04/2024, passed by respondent No.3 vide ANNEXURE - F, to the petition. b. Issue Writ of Certiorari or quashing the impugned order bearing No. Sankya.va.te.s.aa./LGSTO/Ho/2023-24/T.No.1954 and reference No.ZA2903240709390, dated 16/03/2024 passed by Respondent No.4 vide ANNEXURE- E, to the petition. c. Issue writ of Mandamus or directing the Respondent No. 3 to pass the order on merits of the case, in appeal filed by the petitioner. d. Pass such other Order or further Orders as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit in the facts and circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

Heard the learned counsel Sri.H.R.Kambiyavar, appearing for petitioner, learned AGA-Sri.T.Hanumareddy, appearing for respondents Nos.1, 3 and 4 and learned counsel Sri.M.B.Kanavi, appearing for respondent No.2. 3. The petitioner is a proprietorship concern registered under the Provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16390 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CGST Act’ for short) and the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the KGST Act’ for short). The issue relates to the issuance of a show-cause notice as to why the registration of the petitioner should not be cancelled. The cancellation ensued upon the authority not being satisfied with the petitioner's reply. The petitioner then seeks to file an appeal invoking Section 107 of the CGST Act, which was rejected on the ground of limitation.

In identical circumstances, this Court has permitted appeals to be filed despite the delay in Writ Petition No.101618 of 2025 decided on 29.10.2025, wherein this Court has held as follows. 1. “Petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: a. “Issue Writ of Certiorari or in the like nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order bearing no. Appeal No. GST-227/2024-25/B-491, dated 30/09/2024, passed by respondent no. 2. vide ANNEXURE-C, to the petition. b. Consequently or in the like nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order bearing no. ACCT/A- 5/RECTIFICATION/2023-24 dated 21.11.2023, passed by respondent no. 1 vide ANNEXURE-A. c. Pass such other order of further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit in the facts and circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice and equity.” HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16390

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner notwithstanding the fact of payment of complete tax, the assessment is drawn against him, against which an appeal is preferred and the appeal is rejected on the sole ground of delay.

The learned counsel submits that the issue in the lis stands answered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No.107549/2024 disposed of on 21.01.2025. 4. In the light of the issue standing answered by this Court and that of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.100608/2025, the petition deserves to succeed in the same direction that is issued while disposing of Writ Petition No.107549 of 2024. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed in part. ii. The petitioner is permitted to file an appeal against the cancellation of registration before the Appellate Authority within four weeks from the date of the receipt of this order. iii. In the event, the appeal is preferred within four weeks as aforesaid, it shall be considered on its merit and not reject the appeal on the ground of limitation. iv. In the event, the petitioner would not prefer an appeal within four weeks as permitted above, the benefit of the order rendered in the subject petition would not be available to the petitioner.

In the light of the Appellate Authority being directed to consider the appeal on its merits, the impugned order of the Appellate Authority is hereby set aside. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16390

All other contentions are left open to be urged before the Appellate Authority. (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE