M/S. Apkon Ventures Private Limited vs. The Commissioner Of Central Tax (Appeals-Ii)

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. and learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned AGA appearing for respondent No.3. 3. The petitioner, who is engaged in the business of construction of government roads and other allied activities, is before this Court challenging the order passed by respondent No.1 under Section 107(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, 'CGST Act'), whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22404 dismissed on the ground of delay. The petitioner is also assailing the order passed by respondent No.3, which is impugned at Annexure-"F".

Upon a perusal of the material on record: The principal question that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the order impugned passed by respondent No.1 dismissing the petitioner’s appeal under Section 107(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, solely on the ground of delay, is sustainable in law. Additionally, this Court is called upon to examine the legality and propriety of the adjudication order passed by respondent No.3, impugned at Annexure- “F”.

It is the specific case of the petitioner that the order impugned at Annexure-“F” came to be passed by respondent No.3 without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and that the same was not communicated to the petitioner in the manner known to HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22404 law. It is contended that the petitioner was unaware of the passing of the said order and came to know of it only belatedly. Immediately upon obtaining knowledge of the order, the petitioner took steps to prefer an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. However, respondent No.1 rejected the appeal on the ground that the same was barred by limitation, holding that the statutory period prescribed for preferring an appeal had lapsed, without adverting to or giving due consideration to the liberty expressly granted by the co-ordinate bench of this court in the earlier round of litigation.

In order to appreciate the nature and scope of such liberty, it would be apposite to extract paragraph No.2 and 3 of the said order, which reads as under:

This Court finds considerable force in the contention advanced by the petitioner. The records disclose that this Court, in an earlier round of proceedings, had specifically granted liberty to the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy and had also directed the Appellate Authority to consider the benefit Page No. 6 is re-typed and re-placed Vide Court Order dated 09.07.2025 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22404 of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in computing the period of limitation. Despite such liberty and express observations made by this Court, as reflected in paragraph No.2 of the earlier order, the respondent No.1/Appellate Authority has failed to advert to or give effect to the same while adjudicating the appeal.

It is evident from the impugned order dated 29.04.2025 that the appellate authority has dismissed

Therefore, the order of respondent No.1 is rendered unsustainable in law. On this short but significant ground alone, the impugned appellate order is liable to be quashed and the matter requires to be remanded for reconsideration in accordance with law, keeping in view the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act and the liberty granted by this Court.

It is pertinent to note that the matter was seized by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals- II), the statutory Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner had preferred an appeal before respondent No.1 challenging the assessment order, and the said appeal was filed pursuant to the liberty Page No. 8 is re-typed and re-placed Vide Court Order dated 09.07.2025 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22404 granted by this Hon’ble Court, as evidenced in Annexure–H.

In this backdrop, the critical question that arises is whether the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit)-6.3, DGSTO-respondent No.3, could have simultaneously exercised juri iction and proceeded to pass a separate order vide Annexure-F pertaining to the same subject matter, despite the pendency of appeal proceedings before respondent No.1. 12. The petitioner submits that once the appellate forum is seized of the matter, any parallel proceedings initiated or concluded by respondent No.3, which touches upon or affects the subject matter under appeal, are not only premature but also juri ictionally improper. Such action results Page No. 9 is re-typed and re-placed Vide Court Order dated 09.07.2025 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22404 in multiplicity of proceedings, creates juri ictional overlap, and amounts to interference with the appellate process, which undermines the scheme and spirit of the CGST Act.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts have time and again held that once an appeal is entertained, any collateral or parallel adjudication on the same cause of action by another authority must be avoided, as it defeats the purpose of the statutory remedy and offends principles of natural justice, judicial discipline, and fair procedure. In the present case, the order passed by respondent No.3, despite full knowledge of the pending appeal and judicial directions, is arbitrary and legally unsustainable, and is therefore liable to be quashed.

In view of the foregoing, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed.