M/S R S G Logistics vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes (Audit)-1

The petitioner is a partnership firm involved in the business of logistics and registered under the provisions of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'the Acts'). Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and respondent No.1 passed an adjudication order dated 29.08.2023 under Section 73(9) read with Sections 50 and 122 of the Acts (vide Annexure-D to the writ petition). The petitioner within 90 days thereafter, preferred a rectification application on 26.10.2023. He did not prefer an appeal. The rectification application was rejected on NC: 2024:KHC:46201

2024 by respondent No.1, on the ground that there is no error apparent on the face of record in respect of adjudicating order passed by him. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 107 of the Act before respondent No.

The said appeal was filed on 10.02.2024. The same came to be rejected on the ground that the original adjudication order dated 29.08.2023 and the appeal filed is beyond the period of limitation calculated from the said date. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

During the course of arguments, the counsel for petitioner submitted that bonafide the petitioner believed that there was an error apparent on the face of the record and hence, instead of filing the appeal under Section 107 of Act, it filed an application for rectification of the order and the appeal is filed challenging the original adjudicating order and not merely the rectification order and under the said circumstances, she prays that time spent by the NC: 2024:KHC:46201 petitioner pursuing the rectification application be excluded.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader upon instructions justifies the order passed by respondent No.2 and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

In the instant case, admittedly, the adjudication order was passed on 29.08.2023. The petitioner could have preferred an appeal but chose to file rectification application and the same was filed on 26.10.2023. If it were to file an appeal instead of rectification application, the same would have been within the limitation. After rejection of the rectification application, petitioner has realized that it was not the appropriate step that it should have taken and on the contrary, it should have preferred an appeal. Further, the petitioner has not delayed filing an appeal after disposal of the rectification application. Under the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion it would be appropriate to direct respondent No.2 to consider the period of limitation by NC: 2024:KHC:46201 deducting the time spent by the petitioner in pursuing the rectification application before respondent No.1 and thereafter proceed with the appeal on merits. Hence, the following: ORDER i) The impugned order dated 18.05.2024 bearing No.JCCT(APL)MNG/2023-24 passed by respondent No.2 (vide Annexure-G to the writ petition) is hereby set aside;