M/S Adarsh Constructions vs. The Commissioner
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
“a) Quash the impugned order dated 12.03.2025 passed by Respondent No.1 Authority in Appeal No.MNG- JJ-ADC-99-2024-2025-GST as per Annexure-A in the interest of equity and justice.
b) To direct the Respondent No.1 to restore the Appeal No.MNG-JJ-ADC-99-2024-2025-GST filed by the petitioner challenging the Original Order No.MLR-CGST-000- SUP- BK-01-2023-2024 passed by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-F and consequently condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal on merits.
c) To Grant any such other relief as the Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant, in the ends of equity and justice.”
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondents having initiated proceedings against the petitioner under Section 74 of the CGST Act, the petitioner having contested the same, the said proceedings culminated in an order dated 19.07.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the said HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44277 adjudication order dated 19.07.2023, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent – Appellate Authority under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act on 26.03.2024 along with application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. The First Appellate Authority having considered the said appeal came to the conclusion that the appeal filed on 26.03.2024 beyond the prescribed period of 90 days / 3 months and condonable / extendable period of one month as contemplated under Section 107(4) of the CCST Act proceeded to dismiss the appeal as barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned orders passed by the respondents, petitioner is before this court by way of the present petition.
A perusal of the material on record, in particular the impugned order of the 1st respondent – Appellate Authority will indicate that at paragraph No.13 therein, the First Appellate Authority has recorded that the 2nd respondent / Adjudicating Authority had uploaded the adjudication order on the common portal only on 03.01.2024 in terms of Rule 142(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017. However, at paragraph No.12 of the impugned order, the First Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the order HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44277 was communicated via registered e-mail ID of the petitioner on 24.07.2023 itself, as a result of which, the appeal was preferred by the petitioner on 26.03.2024 beyond the maximum statutory period of four months was barred by limitation and proceeded to dismiss the appeal.
In this context, it is pertinent to note that the said finding recorded by the First Appellate Authority at paragraph No.12 of the impugned order that the said that the adjudication Order-in-original was communicated to the petitioner via registered email-ID is not substantiated or established by any other material on record. Further, having recorded a specific finding that the 2nd respondent had uploaded the adjudication order only on 03.01.2024 in terms of Rule 142(5) of the CCST Rules, I am of the considered opinion that the appeal filed by the petitioner on 26.03.2024 within the prescribed period of 3 months from the date on which the adjudication order was uploaded on 03.01.2024 was well within the prescribed period of limitation and the erroneous finding recorded by the First Appellate Authority to the effect that the appeal was barred by limitation deserves to be set aside and the matter remitted back to the First Appellate Authority for HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44277 reconsideration of the appeal afresh, on merits, in accordance with law and without reference to the period of limitation, which stands concluded in favour of the petitioner by this order.
In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order at Annexure – A dated 12.03.2025 passed by respondent No.1 is hereby set aside. (iii) Matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent – First Appellate Authority for reconsideration without reference to the period of limitation. It is held that the appeal filed by the petitioner is within time and not barred by limitation.
(iv) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE
SV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 27
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.