BharatTaxGST

M/S Prudential Properties vs. The Joint Commissioner

Original PDF →
WP/202518/2025HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC03010754202504 November 2025Bench: M.G.S.KAMAL7 pages
For Petitioner: SRI. DEVI PRASAD GANPATRAO, ADVOCATEFor Respondent: SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6532 WP No. 202518 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 202518 OF 2025 (T-RES) BETWEEN: M/S PRUDENTIAL PROPERTIES (A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISION OF CGST/SGST ACT 2017) 1-65/Q14 YATEEM KHANA, AIWAN E SHAHI ROAD, OPP V V SCHOOL, KALABURAGI, (REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SHRI KHALEEL MASOOD ALI S/O MOHAMMAD ALI AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DEVI PRASAD GANPATRAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS), AUDIT 1, 1ST FLOOR VTK BUILDING, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, STATION BAZAR, KALABURAGI-585102. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, (AUDIT)-1, KALABURAGI-585102. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA) Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6532 WP No. 202518 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO GRANT A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT BY, A) QUASHING THE ORDER IN GST AP 222/2025- 26/785/1 DATED 06.08.2025 AT ANNEXURE-G PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 REJECTING THE PETITIONERS APPEAL AS BARRED BY LIMITATION. B) CONDONE THE DELAY OF APPROXIMATELY 290 DAYS (AFTER EXCLUSION OF THE WRIT PETITION PERIOD) IN FILING THE APPEAL C) DIRECT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONERS APPEAL NO. 222/2025-26 ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW D) PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER(S) AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL

ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL)

The petitioner is before this Court seeking following relief’s: “a) Quashing the order in GST:AP 222/2025- 26/785/1 dated 06.08.2025 at Annexure-G passed by the respondent No.1 rejecting the petitioner’s appeal as barred by limitation. b) Condone the delay of approximately 290 days (after exclusion of the writ petition period) in filing the appeal. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6532 c) Direct the first appellate authority to consider the petitioners appeal No. 222/2025-26 on merits in accordance with law. d) Pass such other order(s) as this Hon’ble court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

2.

The petitioner is registered with the Department of Goods and Service Tax with the registration No. 29AAMFP7840D1ZX on 09.07.2018. That a show cause notice dated 22.12.2023 was issued by respondent No.2 for the period 2018-19 proposing to demand GST and Electricity charges, HVAC and DG charges and the interest on the belated filing of GST returns/GSTR-3B for the short payment of GST. That the petitioner was also served with the summary show cause notice dated 22.12.2023 in Form GST DRC-01 by respondent No.

2.

Thereafter, an order dated 30.03.2024 was passed by respondent No.2, confirming the demand made by respondent No.

2.

The said order was passed without benefit of hearing the petitioner. Being aggrieved, petitioner sought for rectification of the said ex-parte order by filing application HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6532 on 19.03.2025, which came to be rejected vide endorsement dated 26.03.2025, as the application for rectification was filed beyond the period of 90 days. Being aggrieved, petitioner had preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.201601/2025. This Court disposed of the said writ petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy under the provisions of Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017. Petitioner had accordingly filed an appeal before the respondent No.1-Appellate authority. By order dated 06.08.2025, respondent No.1, rejected the said appeal on the ground of the same having barred by limitation. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds in the memorandum of petition submits that an ex-parte adjudication order was passed by respondent No.2 on 30.03.2024. The said order came to the knowledge of petitioner when the bank account of the petitioner’s was attached for the purpose of recovery of HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6532 the GST. Petitioner soon thereafter had preferred an application seeking rectification of the adjudication order. The said application was rejected as the same had been filed beyond 90 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal which was filed against the said order has also been rejected by respondent No.1 declining to condone the delay of 368 days. He submits that the respondent ought to have taken into consideration the date of knowledge. Thus, if the limitation is calculated as such, the delay would be about 290 days.

4.

He relies upon the orders passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court, in the similar writ petitions, namely, i) W.P.No.200898/2025 dated 22.02.2025, ii) W.P.No.200569/2025 dated 28.02.2025, iii) W.P.No.200155/2025 dated 17.03.2025, iv) W.P.No.200975/2025 dated 28.03.2025, and v) W.P.No.201028/2025 dated 04.04.2025. 5. Relying upon the orders passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this court as above, the learned counsel HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6532 to the petitioner submits that the time consumed in filing the writ petition in W.P.No.201601/2025 and its disposal i.e., between 02.04.2025 to 16.07.2025 is required to be excluded.

6.

Learned AGA appearing for the respondents does not dispute the fact that under the similar facts and circumstances of the matter, the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court had condoned the delay and remitted the matter to respondent No.1 to consider the matter on its merits. Since the petitioner is also similarly situated, this Court do not see any reason not to extend the benefit of condonation of delay in preferring the appeal under the factual scenario referred to herein above.

7.

In that view of the matter, the following: ORDER (a) The petition is partly allowed. (b) The order dated 06.08.2025 passed by respondent No.1 declining to condone the delay and consequently rejecting the appeal is set HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6532 aside. Delay of 290 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. (c) Matter is remitted to respondent No.1-Appellate authority, who shall without adverting to the issue of limitation, proceed to adjudicate upon the merits of the case after affording sufficient opportunities to the parties and pass orders in accordance with law. (M.G.S.KAMAL) JUDGE

MSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63 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.