M/S Abdul Hamid Th Abdul Hamid vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department, Jammu And Others

Held

The Court held that the order dated 24.01.2026, by which the appellate authority dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation, was to be set aside. The Court allowed the application for condonation of delay. The matter was remitted to the appellate authority for consideration and disposal on merits in accordance with law. The Court noted that the order was passed on concession and directed that it should not be treated as a precedent for future cases. The issue regarding the validity of the adjudication proceedings and the service of the assessment order was not explicitly decided on merits, as the appeal was remitted back to the appellate authority.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Abdul Hamid, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated 26.12.2023 under Section 73 of the GST Act, an assessment order dated 16.03.2024 under Section 73(9) of the JKGST Act, and an order dated 24.01.2026 by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals-II). The petitioner argued that the revenue initiated adjudication proceedings under Section 73 without concluding scrutiny proceedings under Section 61 and Rule 99(3), and that the assessment order was ex parte and not properly served. The petitioner also stated that due to severe medical complications in May 2024, he was unable to file a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the JKGST Act within the prescribed period. He filed an appeal with a condonation of delay application and deposited the mandatory pre-deposit of Rs. 99,626/-. However, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal as time-barred.

Key Issues

1. Whether the adjudication proceedings under Section 73 of the GST Act were validly initiated without concluding the scrutiny proceedings under Section 61 and Rule 99(3)? 2. Whether the ex parte assessment order dated 16.03.2024 was passed without proper service upon the petitioner? 3. Whether the appellate authority erred in dismissing the statutory appeal as time-barred, despite the petitioner's submission of medical exigency preventing timely filing? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the revenue bypassed mandatory statutory procedures by initiating adjudication proceedings before concluding scrutiny. They also contended that the assessment order was not served in a legally permissible mode. Furthermore, the petitioner asserted that the medical complications constituted a valid reason for the delay in filing the appeal, and this cause pleaded in the condonation of delay application should have been considered by the appellate authority. Revenue's Contentions: The Senior Additional Advocate General for the respondents conceded that the order passed by the appellate authority could be set aside, acknowledging that the petitioner had demonstrated a medical condition that prevented them from filing the appeal within the prescribed period.