Case Law Details
Bandigisab Maheboobsab Bijapur Vs Assistant Commissioner (Karnataka High Court)
The Karnataka High Court considered a writ petition seeking quashing of the appellate order dated 03.01.2025 passed in Appeal No. GST-462/2024-25/B-1065 and a direction to the authorities to decide the matter on merits.
The petitioner is a proprietorship concern registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The dispute arose from the issuance of a show cause notice proposing cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration. The registration was cancelled after the authority found the petitioner’s reply unsatisfactory. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, which was rejected solely on the ground of limitation.
The High Court noted that an identical issue had already been considered in Writ Petition No.101618 of 2025, decided on 29.10.2025. In that case, the petitioner had contended that despite payment of the entire tax liability, the assessment was made and the appeal against it was rejected only on the ground of delay. The Court had observed that the issue was already covered by its earlier decision in Writ Petition No.107549/2024 disposed of on 21.01.2025 and by the Division Bench judgment in Writ Appeal No.100608/2025.
In the earlier decision reproduced in the present order, the Court had allowed the writ petition in part and permitted the petitioner to file an appeal against cancellation of registration before the Appellate Authority within four weeks from receipt of the order. It had further directed that, if the appeal was filed within the prescribed four-week period, the Appellate Authority should consider it on merits and should not reject it on the ground of limitation. The Court had also clarified that if the appeal was not filed within the permitted period, the benefit of the order would not be available.
Following the same approach, the High Court held that the present case stood on identical circumstances. In view of the earlier directions requiring the Appellate Authority to consider such appeals on merits, the Court set aside the impugned order of the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal on limitation.
The Court left all other contentions open for consideration before the Appellate Authority.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:
a. Issue Writ of Certiorari or in the like nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order bearing Appeal No.GST-462/2024-25/b-1065, dated 03.01.2025, passed by respondent No.2 vide ANNEXURE-D, to the petition.
b. Issue writ of Mandamus or like in the nature of directing the Respondent no.1 and 2 to pass the order on merits of the case.
c. Pass such other Order or further Orders as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit in the facts and circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.H.R.Kambiyavar, appearing for petitioner, learned AGA-Sri.T.Hanumareddy, appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 and learned counsel Sri.M.B.Kanavi, appearing for respondent No.4.
3. The petitioner is a proprietorship concern registered under the Provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CGST Act’ for short) and the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the KGST Act’ for short). The issue relates to the issuance of a show-cause notice as to why the registration of the petitioner should not be cancelled. The cancellation ensued upon the authority not being satisfied with the petitioner’s reply. The petitioner then seeks to file an appeal invoking Section 107 of the CGST Act, which was rejected on the ground of limitation.
4. In identical circumstances, this Court has permitted appeals to be filed despite the delay in Writ Petition No.101618 of 2025 decided on 29.10.2025, wherein this Court has held as follows.
1. “Petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:
a. “Issue Writ of Certiorari or in the like nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order bearing no. Appeal No. GST-227/2024-25/B-491, dated 30/09/2024, passed by respondent no. 2. vide ANNEXURE-C, to the petition.
b. Consequently or in the like nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order bearing no. ACCT/A-5/RECTIFICATION/2023-24 dated 21.11.2023, passed by respondent no. 1 vide ANNEXURE-A.
c. Pass such other order of further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit in the facts and circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner notwithstanding the fact of payment of complete tax, the assessment is drawn against him, against which an appeal is preferred and the appeal is rejected on the sole ground of delay.
3. The learned counsel submits that the issue in the lis stands answered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No.107549/2024 disposed of on 21.01.2025.
4. In the light of the issue standing answered by this Court and that of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.100608/2025, the petition deserves to succeed in the same direction that is issued while disposing of Writ Petition No.107549 of 2024.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
i. Writ petition is allowed in part.
ii. The petitioner is permitted to file an appeal against the cancellation of registration before the Appellate Authority within four weeks from the date of the receipt of this order.
iii. In the event, the appeal is preferred within four weeks as aforesaid, it shall be considered on its merit and not reject the appeal on the ground of limitation.
iv. In the event, the petitioner would not prefer an appeal within four weeks as permitted above, the benefit of the order rendered in the subject petition would not be available to the petitioner.
Ordered accordingly.”
5. In the light of the Appellate Authority being directed to consider the appeal on its merits, the impugned order of the Appellate Authority is hereby set aside.
6. All other contentions are left open to be urged before the Appellate Authority.
Author Bio
