M/S Ravishankar R Andral vs. Joint Commissioner
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Ravishankar R. Andral Engg and Contractor, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an order dated 15.03.2025 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax (Appeals). The appeal before the Appellate Authority was not entertained because there was a delay of 41 days in filing it. The Appellate Authority's decision was based on the premise that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain appeals beyond 120 days. The petitioner contended that the issue in their case was covered by a previous judgment in W.P No.200569/2025.
Held
The Court allowed the writ petition. It set aside the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority, which had rejected the appeal solely on the ground of limitation. The matter was remitted back to the respondent (Appellate Authority) for consideration of the appeal on its merits. The Court explicitly stated that, except for the question of limitation, all other contentions raised by the petitioner were kept open for consideration. The reasoning appears to be based on the concession made by the respondent and the precedent established in W.P No.200569/2025, which likely dealt with similar issues of condonation of delay or the Appellate Authority's power to entertain delayed appeals under specific circumstances.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Appellate Authority has the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal filed beyond the prescribed limitation period of 120 days, considering the facts of the case? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the issue in their case is identical to that decided in W.P No.200569/2025, implying that the principle laid down in that judgment should apply. They relied on the aforementioned writ petition for their argument. Respondent's contention: The learned Additional Government Advocate fairly submitted that the petitioner is entitled to similar relief as granted in W.P No.200569/2025. This indicates the respondent conceded to the petitioner's argument regarding the applicability of the previous judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
Learned for the petitioner submits that there is a 41 days delay in filing the appeal before the Appellate Authority. The appeal is not entertained on the premise that the Appellate Authority has no juri iction to entertain the appeal beyond 120 days.
Learned counsel would further submit that the issue raised in this case is covered in terms of the Judgment in W.P No.200569/2025. 3. Learned Additional Government Advocate fairly submits that the petitioner is entitled to the similar relief which was granted to the petitioner in W.P No.200569/2025. 4. Hence the following:
ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. NC: 2025:KHC-K:1841 WP No. 200903 of 2025
ii) The impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation is set aside. iii) The matter is remitted to the respondent for consideration of appeal on merit. Except the question of limitation, all other contentions are kept open. (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE
THM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8
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.