Naish Solutions Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner Of

WP/11220/2025HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01023505202516 April 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR3 pages

For Petitioner: SRI. PRADYUMNA HEJIB, ADVOCATEFor Respondent: SMT. JYOTI M. MARADI, HCGP

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The petitioner, Naish Solutions Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated March 20, 2025, passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals-9), the first respondent. This order rejected the petitioner's appeal, filed under Section 107 of the Karnataka Goods and Service Tax Act (KGST Act), on the grounds that it was barred by limitation. The petitioner's appeal was filed on August 29, 2024, against an order dated April 29, 2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (LGSTO-55) under Section 73(9) of the KGST Act. The petitioner contended that the appeal was filed on the last date of the extendable/condonable period of limitation.

Held

The High Court held that the first respondent Appellate Authority erred in summarily rejecting the petitioner's appeal as barred by limitation. The Court noted the undisputed fact that the petitioner filed the appeal on August 29, 2024, which was the last date of the extendable period of limitation as per Section 107(4) of the KGST Act. The Court found this rejection to be erroneous and contrary to the material on record, warranting interference. The ratio decidendi is that an appeal filed on the last day of the extendable limitation period cannot be dismissed as barred by limitation. The Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and remitted the matter back to the first respondent Appellate Authority for reconsideration on merits, without reference to the limitation period, which was concluded in favour of the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner before the first respondent Appellate Authority on August 29, 2024, was barred by limitation under Section 107 of the KGST Act, considering the order dated April 29, 2024, passed by the second respondent. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the appeal was filed on August 29, 2024, which was the last date of the extendable/condonable period of limitation as contemplated under Section 107(4) of the KGST Act. Therefore, the appeal was within the prescribed time limit. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents regarding the limitation period.

Sections Cited

Section 107, Section 73, Section 107(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15643 WP No. 11220 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 11220 OF 2025 (T-RES) BETWEEN: NAISH SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR. SAROJ J THAKUR SON OF MR. JAWAHAR LAL THAKUR AGED 39 YEARS, HAVING OFFICE AT NO.403, 2ND MAIN, EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT, KASTURI NAGAR, BENGALURU URBAN, KARNATAKA - 560 043. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRADYUMNA HEJIB, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS -9) KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, LGSTO - 55 SHOP NO.11, BDA COMPLEX, KALYANANAGAR, H.B.R. LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 043 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. JYOTI M. MARADI, HCGP) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED UNDER FORM GST APL - 02 DATED 20/03/2025 IN RELATION TO ARN NO. AD290824035663R ANNX-A PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT AND ETC., Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15643 WP No. 11220 of 2025 THIS W.P, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, PRELIMINARY HEARING WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

This petition by the appellant before the first respondent Appellate Authority, is directed against the impugned order Annexure-A dated 20.03.2025, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 107 of the Karnataka Goods and Service Tax Act, ('KGST' Act' for short) was rejected by the first respondent Appellate Authority as barred by limitation.

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that pursuant to proceedings initiated by the respondent No.2 under Section 73 of the KGST Act, the respondent No.2 passed the order dated 29.04.2024 under Section 73(9) of the KGST Act against the petitioner, who filed an appeal before the first respondent Appellate Authority on 29.08.2024, i.e. on the last date of the extendable/condonable period of limitation as contemplated under Section 107 (4) of the KGST Act. In this context, a perusal of the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 20.03.2025 will indicate that the sole reason on which the first Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal on the ground that it is barred by limitation. NC: 2025:KHC:15643 WP No. 11220 of 2025 However, having regard to the undisputed fact that the petitioner filed the appeal on 29.08.2024, i.e. on the last date of the extendable period of limitation, I am of the considered opinion that the first respondent Appellate Authority has erred in summarily rejecting the appeal as barred by limitation, which is erroneous and contrary to the material on record warranting interference in the present petition.

In the result, I pass the following ORDER

i) The petition is hereby allowed.

ii) The impugned order at Annexure-A dated 20.03.2025 is herby set aside.

iii) The matter is remitted back to the first respondent Appellate Authority for reconsideration afresh on merits without reference to limitation which stands concluded in favour of the petitioner under this order. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE AP, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

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.