M/S Enn Ess Royal Automotive PVT LTD vs. State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Enn Ess Royal Automotive Pvt. Ltd., is challenging an order dated 13.02.2024 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)-6 (4th respondent). This order dismissed the petitioner's appeal as barred by limitation. The appeal was filed against an ex-parte adjudication order dated 30.11.2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit)-2 (2nd respondent) under Section 73(9) of the KGST Act. The petitioner filed the appeal on 25.08.2023, which was beyond the prescribed three-month period and the condonable one-month period from the date of the adjudication order.
Held
The Court held that the 4th respondent erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal as barred by limitation. The adjudication order was passed on 30.11.2022, which is prior to the cut-off date of 31.03.2023 stipulated in the Circular dated 02.11.2023. This circular clearly permitted the petitioner to file an appeal on or before 31.01.2024. The petitioner filed their appeal on 25.08.2023, which was within the extended period of limitation as per the circular. The appellate authority failed to consider this crucial circular, leading to an erroneous dismissal. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned in terms of the circular, and the matter was remitted back to the 4th respondent for reconsideration on merits, without reference to the period of limitation.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner before the 4th respondent was barred by limitation, considering the provisions of Section 107 of the KGST Act and the Circular dated 02.11.2023 (Annexure-E)? The petitioner argued that the 4th respondent erred in dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation. They contended that Circular dated 02.11.2023 allowed them to file an appeal on or before 31.01.2024 for orders passed on or before 31.03.2023. The petitioner asserted that this circular was not considered by the appellate authority, and therefore, the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and the appeal should be heard on merits. The respondents, represented by the learned Additional Government Advocate, did not dispute the issuance of the Circular dated 02.11.2023, which extended the period of limitation for filing appeals against orders passed prior to 31.03.2023, up to 31.01.2024. They submitted that an appropriate order could be passed in the petition.
Sections Cited
Section 73(9), Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEARING NO. GST/AP. NO.120/2023-24 DATED 13/02/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE- D AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:
“Issue Writ of Certiorari or directions in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent bearing No.GST/AP.No.120/2023-24 dated 13.02.2024 vide Annexure ’D’.
Issue Writ of Mandamus or directions in the nature of Mandamus directing the 4th respondent to admit the appeal dated 13.02.2024 and be heard on merits of the case, vide Annexure ‘D’.” NC: 2025:KHC:17998
A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 30.11.2022 vide Annexure-B, 2nd respondent passed an ex- parte adjudication Order against the petitioner under Section 73(9) of the KGST Act. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed an appeal under Section 107 before the 4th respondent- Appellate Authority on 25.08.2023. By the impugned Order dated 13.02.2024, 4th respondent dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation, since the same was filed beyond the prescribed period of three months as well as condonable and extendable period of one month from the date of ex-parte adjudication Order.
Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the respondent, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present writ petition.
In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the Circular at Annexure-E dated 02.11.2023 in order to point out that by virtue of said Circular, petitioner would have been entitled to file an appeal on or before 31.01.2024 in respect of all orders NC: 2025:KHC:17998 passed by adjudicating authority on or before 31.03.2023. It is submitted that the said Circular and those aspect of the matter has not been considered by the 4th respondent-appellate authority and as such, impugned Order at Annexure-D dated 13.02.2024 dismissing as barred by limitation deserves to be set-aside and delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned in terms of the aforesaid circular of 4th respondent by directing to dispose of the appeal on merits, in accordance with law.
Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate does not dispute issuance of Circular at Annexure-E dated 02.11.2023 extending the period of limitation to file an appeal against an order passed prior to 31.03.2023, up to 31.01.2024. It is submitted that an appropriate Order may be passed in the instant petition.
The aforesaid facts and circumstances indicate that it is undisputed fact that adjudication Order in Original was passed by the 2nd respondent on 30.11.2022 which is much prior to cut off date i.e., 31.03.2023 as stipulated in the Circular dated NC: 2025:KHC:17998
2023 which permits the petitioner to file an appeal on or before 31.01.2024. 7. In the instant case, material on record discloses that the petitioner filed an appeal on 25.08.2023 in relation to the Order dated 30.11.2022 and in the light of the aforesaid Circular, I am of the considered opinion that 4th respondent clearly fell in error in dismissing the appeal as being barred by limitation, without appreciating the aforesaid Circular which clearly establishes that the appeal was filed within the period of limitation as extended by aforesaid Circular and as such, impugned Order deserves to be set-aside and the matter remitted back to the 4th respondent for consideration afresh on merits and in accordance with law without reference to period of limitation.
In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Petition is allowed.
(ii) Impugned Order at Annexure-D dated 13.02.2024 is hereby set-aside. NC: 2025:KHC:17998 (iii) Delay, if any, on the part of the petitioner in filing the appeal before the 4th respondent-Appellate Authority hereby stands condoned in terms of the Circular at Annexure-E dated 02.11.2023. (iv) The matter is remitted to the 4th respondent for reconsideration, afresh, without reference to the period of limitation which stands answered in favour of the petitioner by virtue of this Order. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE
kcm List No.: 2 Sl No.: 58
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.