Shivanand Gurulingappa Patil vs. The Joint Commisisoner Of Commercial Taxex (Appeals)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Shivanand Gurulingappa Patil, operating as M/s. Nandi Agri. Clinic and Agri. Business Centre, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated March 18, 2025, passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Kalaburagi Division. This order rejected the petitioner's appeal (GST: Appeal No. 511/2024-25) due to a delay of 451 days in filing it. The original demand order, dated December 18, 2023, for a sum of Rs. 14,68,593/- (tax, interest, and penalty), was passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The petitioner sought to quash the rejection order and requested the appellate authority to restore the appeal and entertain it on merits, condoning the delay.
Held
The Court allowed the petition in part. It quashed the impugned order dated March 18, 2025, passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), which had rejected the petitioner's appeal due to a 451-day delay. The Court reasoned that the issue was covered by a previous judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) to consider the appeal on its merits. The Court explicitly stated that all contentions, except for the issue relating to limitation, were kept open to be decided by the appellate authority during the appeal proceedings. The ratio decidendi is that if a Co-ordinate Bench has ruled on a specific issue regarding delay condonation in GST appeals, subsequent benches should follow that precedent, and the appellate authority should proceed to hear the appeal on merits.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appellate authority has the power to condone a delay of 451 days in filing an appeal under GST laws, and if so, what is the extent of that power? This issue turns on the interpretation of relevant provisions governing appeals and condonation of delay. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the issue is covered by a judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 200569/2025, implying that the appellate authority should consider the appeal on merits despite the delay. Respondents' contention: The learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the issue raised in this petition is also covered by the aforementioned judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench, indicating agreement that the case should be decided based on that precedent.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned in the judgment text provided, beyond general reference to GST appeal provisions.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER NO.95/2023-24 OF DATED 18.12.2023 FOR THE SUM OF Rs.14,68,593/- (TAX + INTEREST + PENALTY) PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT, IN PREFERRING THE APPEAL BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. (II) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT / ORDER/ DIRECTION TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO RESTORE THE APPEAL GST: APPEAL NO.511/2024-25 AND TO ENTERTAIN THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. (III) GRANT SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION AS DEEMED FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
This petition is filed against the order passed by respondent No.1-appellate authority, dismissing the appeal on the premise that there is a delay of 451 days in filing the appeal. NC: 2025:KHC-K:1837
The appellate authority refused to entertain the appeal on the premise that beyond 120 days, it has no juri iction to condone the delay.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue involved in this case is covered in terms of the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.200569/2025. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the issue raised in this petition is covered in terms of the aforementioned judgment.
Hence, the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed in part. ii) The impugned order dated 18.03.2025 passed by respondent No.1 in GST: Appeal No.511/2024-25 at Annexure-C is quashed. NC: 2025:KHC-K:1837 iii) The matter is remitted to respondent No.1 to consider the appeal on merits. iv) It is made clear that all contentions except the contention relating to the limitation are kept open to be decided in the appeal. (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE
LG List No.: 2 Sl No.: 31
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.