M/S. S.R.S. Travels And Logistics Private Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)-3
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: "a. Issue order(s), direction(s), writ(s) in the nature of Certiorari to set aside the Show Cause Notice bearing Reference KGAIN No.JCCT(A)/DGSTO-3/A-73/878/ 2024-25 dated 15.07.2024 issued by the Respondent No.2 (Annexure-C). b. Issue order(s), direction(s), writ(s) in the nature of Certiorari to set aside the Summary of the Show Cause Notice bearing Reference No.ZD2907240306192 dated 10.07.2024 issued by the Respondent No.2 (Annexure- C1). c. Issue order(s), direction(s), writ(s) in the nature of Certiorari to set aside the Order bearing No.CTO(Audit)- 3.8/T.NO /2024-25 dated 17.09.2024 issued by the Respondent No. 2 (Annexure - B). d. Issue order(s), direction(s), writ(s) in the nature of Certiorari to set aside the Summary of the Order bearing Reference No.ZD29092401303E dated 17.09.2024 issued by the Respondent No. 2 (Annexure - B1). e. Issue order(s), direction(s), writ(s) in the nature of Certiorari to set aside the Order in Appeal bearing No. JCCT(Appeals)-3/T.No. 211/2024-25 dated 27.01.2025 issued by Respondent No. 1 (Annexure - A). HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39539 f. In the alternative, if the prayers at 'a' to 'e' above are not granted by this Hon'ble Court, then to remand the matter back to the appellate authority / Respondent no. 1, with directions to the said Respondent to consider the matter afresh, after giving the Petitioner due opportunity; g. Grant any other orders that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice."
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondent and perused the material on record.
A perusal of the material on record will indicate that pursuant to the pre-intimation dated 05.07.2024 issued by respondent No.2 followed by the show-cause notice dated 15.07.2024 issued by respondent No.2 to the petitioner, respondent No.2 passed an adjudication order dated 17.09.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal dated 30.12.2024 along with an application seeking condonation of delay of 13 days in terms of Section 107(4) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short "the KGST Act"). By way of the impugned order, respondent No.1 - Appellate Authority dismissed
the appeal on the ground that the same was barred by limitation, since the appeal was not filed within the prescribed period of 3 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39539 months from the date of the adjudication order. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 27.01.2025, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
A perusal of the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 27.01.2025 will indicate that the sole ground on which the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal is by coming to the conclusion that Section 5 of the Limitation Act would not be applicable to an appeal filed under Section 107 of the KGST Act and consequently,
the appeal filed by the petitioner on 30.12.2024 beyond the prescribed period of 3 months was barred by limitation. In my considered opinion, the Appellate Authority has failed to consider and appreciate the specific provisions contained in Section 107(4) of the KGST Act, which clearly contemplate that there is an extendable/condonable period of one month under the said provision itself, which permits the Appellate Authority to condone the delay in filing an appeal beyond the prescribed period of three months and within the extendable/condonable period of one month from the date of the adjudication order. In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that the Adjudication Order was passed on 17.09.2024 and the extendable/condonable period of limitation HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39539 prescribed under 107(4) would expire only on 16.01.2025 and consequently, the appeal filed by the petitioner along with an application for condonation of delay on 13.12.2024 within the extendable period/condonable period of limitation could not have been said to be barred by limitation and as such, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority deserves to be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law, on merits, without reference to the period of limitation which stands condoned in favour of the petitioner under the present order.
In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order at Annexure-A dated 27.01.2025 passed by respondent No.1 is hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 - Appellate Authority for reconsideration afresh on merits and in accordance with law, without reference to the period of limitation, which stands HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39539 condoned in favour of the petitioner under this order. (iv) The petitioner undertakes to appear before respondent No.1 - Appellate Authority on 10.11.2025, without awaiting further notice. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE
BMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22
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.