Trupti Agro Needs Vs Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Others (Karnataka High Court)
Summary: The Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench, considered a writ petition filed by M/s. Trupti Agro Needs challenging rejection of its GST appeal on limitation grounds. The dispute concerned tax period 2017–18. Following a show-cause notice under Section 73(1) of the GST Act, the Assistant Commissioner passed an adjudication order on 26 September 2023. The petitioner appealed under Section 107, but the Joint Commissioner dismissed the appeal on 3 March 2026 because filing had been delayed by more than 226 days. The petitioner approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
The petitioner cited the Division Bench decision in Yallappa Patil, and coordinate Bench decisions in Jai Hind Enterprises and Bandigisab Maheboobsab Bijapur, concerning relief in delayed appeal matters. The State argued that no provision authorised condonation of the delay. Considering the cited judgments, Justice C.M. Poonacha partly allowed the writ petition, set aside the appellate order, restored Appeal No. GST-416/2023-24/13-1670 and condoned the delay. The appellate authority was directed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in accordance with law, leaving all substantive contentions open.
Before the High Court, the petitioner relied on the Division Bench judgment in Yallappa Patil Vs Assistant Commissioner and Others, wherein the Court had permitted an appeal to be filed within four weeks and directed the appellate authority to decide it without raising an objection regarding limitation. The petitioner also referred to the coordinate Bench decisions in Jai Hind Enterprises Vs Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Others and Bandigisab Maheboobsab Bijapur Vs Assistant Commissioner and Others. These decisions were cited to support the contention that relief could be granted in appropriate circumstances where an appeal had been rejected or could not be entertained because of delay. The petitioner accordingly requested the High Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction and enable adjudication of the substantive GST dispute.
Opposing the petition, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State contended that there was no statutory provision permitting condonation of the delay involved in the petitioner’s appeal. The State maintained that the appellate authority could not entertain an appeal filed beyond the permissible limitation period. Justice C.M. Poonacha considered the rival submissions and examined the judgments cited by the petitioner. The Court particularly took note of the Division Bench decision in Yallappa Patil and the coordinate Bench decisions in Jai Hind Enterprises and Bandigisab Maheboobsab Bijapur, where relief had been granted in comparable circumstances. Having regard to these judicial precedents, the Court held that the writ petition merited consideration notwithstanding the State’s objection concerning the absence of a provision for condonation of delay.
Cases Discussed
- Yallappa Patil vs. Assistant Commissioner and Others, W.A. No. 100608/2025, decided 25.09.2025, NC: 2025:KHC-D:13250-DB (Karnataka High Court) — Division Bench decision cited by the petitioner concerning permission to pursue a delayed appeal without limitation objection.
- Bandigisab Maheboobsab Bijapur vs. Assistant Commissioner and Others, W.P. No. 108239/2025, decided 05.11.2025, NC: 2025:KHC-D:15104 (Karnataka High Court) — Coordinate Bench decision cited for relief against limitation-based rejection of an appeal.
- Jai Hind Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Others, W.P. No. 107549/2024, decided 21.01.2025, NC: 2025:KHC-D:1034 (Karnataka High Court) — Coordinate Bench decision relied on for allowing a delayed appeal to be considered on merits.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
The present petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs:
WHEREFORE, the petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to:-
(i) Issue Writ of Certiorari or in the like nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order bearing No in Appeal No.GST-416/2023-24/13-1670, for the tax period 2017-18, dtd: 03/03/2026, passed by respondent No.2 vide ANNEXURE-B, to the petition.
(ii) 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. The facts, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner, a partnership firm, registered under the provisions of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 20171, was issued a show-cause under Section 73(1) of the Act. Consequent thereto, an adjudication order dated 26.09.2023 (Annexure-A to the writ petition) was passed by respondent No.1 – Assistant Commissioner. The said order was assailed by the petitioner in an appeal filed under Section 107 of the Act before respondent No.2 – Joint Commissioner. Respondent No.2, by the impugned order dated 03.03.2026 (Annexure-B to the writ petition), dismissed the appeal on the ground that there was a delay exceeding 226 days in filing the said appeal.
3. Being aggrieved, the present petition is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in similar facts and circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Yallappa Patil vs. Assistant Commissioner and Others2, permitted an appeal to be filed within four weeks and ordered that the same shall be adjudicated without raising any objection on limitation. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in various cases, i.e., in the case of Jai Hind Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Others3 as well as in the case of Bandigisab Maheboobsab Bijapur vs. Assistant Commissioner and Others4, in a similar factual matrix, granted relief and ordered as under:
“ORDER
a. The petition is allowed in-part.
b. 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 a copy of this order.
c. 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.
d. 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.”
5. Although the learned AGA vehemently contends that there is no provision to condone the delay, having regard to the judgments of the Division Bench and the Co-ordinate Benches, as noticed above, the writ petition merits consideration.
6. Hence, the following:
ORDER
a) The writ petition is allowed in part;
b) The order dated 03.03.2026 passed in Appeal No.GST-416/2023-24/13-1670 passed by respondent No.2 – Joint Commissioner is set aside;
c) The Appeal No.GST-416/2023-24/13-1670 passed by respondent No.2 – Joint Commissioner is restored to file. The delay in filing the said appeal is condoned;
d) The respondent No.2 shall adjudicate the said appeal on merits in accordance with law;
e) All contentions of the parties, on merits of the matter, are kept open.
Notes:
1Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’
2W.A.No.100608/2025 order dated 25.09.2025, NC:2025:KHC-D:13250-DB
3W.P.No.107549/2024 decided on 21.01.2025, NC:2025:KHC-D:1034
4W.P.No.108239/2025 decided on 05.11.2025, NC:2025:KHC-D:15104
