M/S Sachin Kumar Contractor vs. Joint Commissioner
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 09-07-2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN GST.AP:474/2024-25/622/1, WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-C, CONSEQUENTIALLY, CONDONE THE DELAY AND FURTHER DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.2 TO HEAR THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN ON MERIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.07.2025 passed by respondent No.1 in case No.GST:AP:474/2024/25/622/1. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4289
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that even though the Sub–Section 4 of the Section 107 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, ‘the KGST Act, 2017’), provides for filing an appeal within 03 months and extendable by one month, does not bar entertaining the appeal beyond the said period, if an application is made under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of the delay. On that point he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of M/S. Mahila Grahakar Sahakar Sangh Niyamit vs. The Joint Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax (Appeals) Kalaburagi and another in W.P.No.200569/2025 (T-RES). HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4289
The petitioner has filed belated appeal along with an application for condonation of delay. However, the appellate authority i.e., respondent No.1 rejected the appeal on the ground that the appeal was not filed within three months plus one month, as prescribed under Section 107 of the KGST Act, 2017. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/S. Mahila Grahakar Sahakar Sangh Niyamit (Supra) placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta, has held as under:-
“Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is entitled to seek for condonation of delay by explaining the reason for not filing
the appeal in time. He submits that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, ‘the Act, 1963’) is applicable to an appeal filed by the 1 WPA/2904/2023 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4289 Learned Additional Government Advocate though contended that the petitioner was bound to file an appeal within the time prescribed, did not dispute the fact that the Calcutta High Court in similar circumstances had held that Section 5 of the Act, 1963 was applicable to an appeal filed against an order passed by the Assessing Authority.”
The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the said case has held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is applicable to an appeal filed against an order passed by the Assessing Authority.
In view of the aforesaid and in view of the fact that the petitioner has stated that during the relevant period, due to his ill-health, he could not file an appeal within time and he has produced the medical certificate, the petitioner was entitled to seek condonation of delay. Accordingly, the following; HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4289 O R D E R
I. The Writ Petition is allowed. II. The impugned order dated 09.07.2025 passed by respondent No.1 in case No. GST : AP : 474 / 2024 / 25 / 622 / 1, is set-aside. III. The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1, who shall consider the application filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay, on merits and in accordance with law. (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE
KJJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 18 CT:VK
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.