M/S S B Contructions Builders vs. Joint Commissioner Of Goods And Service
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s S.B. Contractions, Builders and Developers, filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court challenging an order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax (Appeals). The appeal before the Appellate Authority was not entertained due to a delay of 103 days in filing. The Appellate Authority's decision was based on the premise that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain appeals beyond the prescribed 120-day limit. The petitioner contended that the issue was covered by a previous judgment in W.P No.200569/2025. The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Advocate, fairly conceded that the petitioner was entitled to similar relief as granted in the aforementioned writ petition.
Held
The Court allowed the writ petition. The impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority, which rejected the appeal solely on the ground of limitation, was set aside. The matter was remitted back to the respondent (Appellate Authority) for consideration of the appeal on its merits. The Court explicitly stated that all contentions, except for the question of limitation, were kept open for the Appellate Authority to decide. The reasoning appears to be based on the concession made by the Revenue and the precedent set by the judgment in W.P No.200569/2025, which likely dealt with condonation of delay or the scope of the Appellate Authority's power to entertain delayed appeals. The ratio decidendi is that an appeal rejected purely on limitation, where precedent or concession suggests otherwise, should be reconsidered on merits.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Appellate Authority has the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal filed beyond the statutory period of 120 days, considering the facts of the case? (Question of law). The petitioner argued that the issue in the present case is covered by the judgment in W.P No.200569/2025, implying that the Appellate Authority should have considered the appeal on merits despite the delay, or that the delay should have been condoned based on the principles laid down in the cited judgment. The respondent (Revenue) conceded that the petitioner is entitled to similar relief as granted in W.P No.200569/2025, indicating an agreement with the petitioner's contention that the previous judgment should be applied, and implicitly acknowledging that the appeal should not have been rejected solely on the ground of limitation.
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 103 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 writ petitioner in W.P No.200569/2025. 4. Hence the following:
ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. NC: 2025:KHC-K:1840 WP No. 200905 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 kept open. (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE
THM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9
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.