Facts of the Case

Omegacube Techsystems Pvt. Ltd. challenged appellate orders dated 16 and 17 October 2025 that dismissed its appeals as barred by limitation, along with the underlying Order-in-Original demands under Section 73(9) of the KGST/CGST Act, 2017 dated 26.08.2024 and 10.02.2025 confirming a combined demand of over Rs. 2.35 crore for tax periods 2019-20 and 2020-21, and a recovery notice in Form GST DRC-13 issued to the petitioner's banker. The show cause notices under Section 73(5), dated 24.05.2024 and 06.11.2024, had been uploaded on the GST portal only under the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab and went unnoticed by the petitioner, who consequently did not file a reply and only learnt of the demand upon receiving the bank recovery notice.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the delay in filing a GST appeal beyond the condonable period under Section 107 can be condoned where the show cause notice and demand order were uploaded only under a tab the taxpayer was unlikely to check.
  2. Whether relief can be granted despite the absence of the GST Appellate Tribunal, forcing the taxpayer to approach the High Court directly under Article 226.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner had genuinely not seen the notices as they were uploaded only under 'Additional Notices and Orders' and not the main notices tab, constituting bona fide and sufficient cause for the delay.
  • The moment the third-party recovery notice was received, the petitioner promptly filed appeals, demonstrating no intentional lapse.
  • In the absence of a functioning GST Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner had no remedy except to approach the High Court, and a justice-oriented approach should govern condonation of delay.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The appellate authority found the delay exceeded the permissible 120-day period (90 days plus 30 condonable days) under Section 107 and dismissed the appeals on that technical ground alone.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court held that the petitioner's inability to respond stemmed from bona fide reasons and unavoidable circumstances, warranting a justice-oriented approach.
  • It set aside both the appellate orders dismissing the appeals as time-barred and the underlying Section 73(9) demand orders, condoning the delay in filing the appeal and remanding the matter to the appellate authority to be decided afresh on merits.
  • The petitioner was directed to appear before the authority on a fixed date without awaiting fresh notice, with liberty to submit replies and documents, failing which the order would stand automatically recalled.

Important Clarification

  • Uploading of statutory notices only under the GST portal's 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab — rather than the primary notices tab — can constitute sufficient cause to condone delay in filing an appeal, since ordinary taxpayers may reasonably fail to notice such notices.
  • Where the GST Appellate Tribunal is not yet functional, High Courts are inclined to grant relief under Article 226 on a case-by-case, justice-oriented basis rather than relegate taxpayers to a non-existent forum.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73, CGST/KGST Act, 2017 – determination of tax demand not involving fraud, sub-sections (5) and (9) covering SCN and final order.
  • Section 107, CGST/KGST Act, 2017 – prescribes the limitation period (and condonable extension) for filing a first appeal.
  • Form GST DRC-13, CGST Rules, 2017 – notice for recovery of tax dues from a third party such as a bank.

Decision – In Favour of

The decision is in favour of the assessee, with both the demand orders and the limitation-based appellate dismissals set aside and the matter remitted for a hearing on merits.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. Case No.: Writ Petition No. 38153 of 2025 (T-RES). Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar. Date of Order: 18 December 2025.

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.