Atharv Enterprises Vs JCIT (Karnataka High Court)
Summary: The Karnataka High Court partly allowed the writ petition filed by Atharv Enterprises challenging the dismissal of its GST appeal on the ground of limitation. The petitioner had challenged an order dated 15.10.2025 passed under Section 73(9) read with Rule 142(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Against that order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 107 of the Act before the Joint Commissioner on 27.03.2026 and also paid a pre-deposit of ₹39,972/-. Since the appeal was filed belatedly, an application seeking condonation of delay was also submitted.
The Appellate Authority, by order dated 04.07.2026 in Appeal No. GST-1231/25-26/B-446, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the delay exceeded the permissible period for condonation. The petitioner consequently approached the High Court seeking quashing of the appellate order and the acknowledgement dated 07.07.2026, together with a direction to the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal on merits.
The Court noted that the order-in-original was dated 15.10.2025 and the appeal was filed on 27.03.2026, resulting in a delay of 163 days. Under Section 107(1) of the GST Act, an appeal is required to be filed within three months from the date of communication of the order. Under Section 107(4), the Appellate Authority may condone delay for a further period of one month where sufficient cause is established. In the present case, the appeal was presented 43 days beyond the condonable period contemplated under Section 107(4).
Before the Appellate Authority, the petitioner had explained that the delay occurred due to rectification proceedings and because the petitioner was occupied with the marriage of her son. The learned AGA opposed the writ petition and pointed out that no documents had been produced concerning any rectification proceedings initiated by the petitioner.
Despite this objection, the High Court considered that the rectification proceedings were not the sole reason stated for the delay. The Court found it expedient to condone the delay. It also noted that the petitioner was contesting the levy of tax under the original order and that various factual aspects were sought to be asserted in support of those contentions.
In reaching its decision, the Court referred to Simplex Infrastructures Ltd., and Another Vs. The Joint Commissioner of Central Tax and Others, where, in a similar factual situation, the delay in filing an appeal was condoned and the appeal was directed to be considered by the Appellate Authority.
Following that approach, the High Court partly allowed the writ petition. Appeal No. GST-1231/25-26/B-446 was restored to its original file and the delay in filing the appeal was condoned. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Joint Commissioner on 07.09.2026 at 03:00 p.m., without requiring any further notice. Thereafter, the Joint Commissioner was directed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in accordance with law after providing the petitioner an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Court expressly kept all contentions of the parties on the merits of the underlying dispute open. Thus, the High Court did not decide the correctness of the tax levy or the substantive merits of the original adjudication order. Its relief was confined to condoning the delay, restoring the appeal and requiring the Appellate Authority to decide it on merits after hearing the petitioner.
The decision is therefore significant primarily for the procedural relief granted in the particular circumstances of the case: although the appeal was filed 43 days beyond the period that the Appellate Authority could ordinarily condone under Section 107(4), the High Court exercised its writ jurisdiction to restore the appeal and permit adjudication on merits. The Court’s direction did not amount to an adjudication in favour of the petitioner on the underlying GST liability.
Cases Discussed
- Simplex Infrastructures Ltd., and Another Vs. The Joint Commissioner of Central Tax and Others — the Karnataka High Court relied upon this similar decision where delay in filing a GST appeal was condoned and the appeal was directed to be considered by the Appellate Authority.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
The present writ petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs:
“a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 04.07.2026 passed by Respondent No.1 in Appeal No.GST-1231/25-26/B-446 vide Annexure-D.
b. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the acknowledgement dated 07.07.2026 issued by Respondent No.1 in Appeal No.GST-1231/25-26/B- 446 vide Annexure-E.
c. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondent No.1, to consider and pass orders on merits in Appeal No.GST-1231/25-26/B-446 vide Annexure -B.
d. Any other appropriate Writ / order or direction as deemed fit and proper.”
2. It is the case of the petitioner that being aggrieved by the order dated 15.10.2025 (Annexure-A to the writ petition) passed under Section 73(9) read with Rule 142(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the 1 Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 107 of the Act before the respondent No.1-Joint Commissioner on 27.03.2026. That the pre-deposit sum of ₹39,972/- was also paid. Since the appeal was filed belatedly, an application for condonation of delay was also filed.
3. The respondent No.1-Joint Commissioner/Appellate Authority vide impugned order dated 04.07.2026 (Annexure-D to the writ petition) has dismissed the appeal on the ground that the delay in filing the appeal exceeds the permissible condonation period and hence the appeal could not be entertained. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition is filed.
4. It is forthcoming that the order-in-original (Annexure-A to the writ petition) was passed on 15.10.2025 and the appeal was filed on 27.03.2026. Accordingly, there was a delay of 163 days in filing the appeal. Under sub-section (1) 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ of Section 107 of the Act an appeal is required to be filed within three months from the date of communication of the order. Under sub-section (4) of Section 107 of the Act, the Appellate Authority is entitled to condone the delay upto one month beyond the prescribed three months period, provided sufficient cause is made out. In the present case, the appeal is presented 43 days beyond the condonable period as contemplated under sub-section (4) of Section 107 of the Act.
5. The appellant while seeking for condonation of delay before the Appellate Authority has stated that the delay was occasioned due to the rectification order and the fact that the petitioner was busy with the marriage of her son.
6. Although learned AGA vehemently opposed the present petition and submits that no documents are produced with regard to any rectification proceedings that the petitioner has initiated, having regard to the fact that the said reason is not only the reason stated by the petitioner, it is expedient that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned.
7. This Court in a similar fact situation in the case of Simplex Infrastructures Ltd., and Another Vs. The Joint 2 Commissioner of Central Tax and Others, has condoned the delay in filing of the appeal and ordered for consideration of the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority. The same is being done in the present case as well due to the fact that the petitioner is contesting the levy of tax by the order-in-original (Annexure-A to the writ petition); as also due to the fact that various factual aspects are sought to be asserted in support of the said contentions.
8. Hence the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is partly allowed;
(ii) Appeal No.GST-1231/25-26/B-446 (Annexure-D to the writ petition) pending before the respondent No.1-Joint Commissioner is restored to its original file and the delay in filing of the said appeal is condoned;
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the respondent No.1-Joint Commissioner in the said appeal on 07.09.2026 at 03.00 p.m., without the requirement of any further notice being issued in this regard;
(iv) Consequent to the appearance of the petitioner, the respondent No.1 shall adjudicate the appeal on merits in accordance with law, after providing the petitioner an adequate opportunity of hearing;
(v) All contentions of the parties on the merits of the matter are kept open.
Notes:-
1Hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’
2 W.P.No.942/2021 dated 03.12.2021
