Facts of the Case

M/s S.Y. Patil, a proprietorship based in Kalaburagi, challenged an order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Appeals) rejecting its appeal against a GST demand solely on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of three months plus a further one month prescribed under Section 107 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner had filed the appeal along with an application seeking condonation of delay, attributing the delay to non-receipt of communication because an incorrect email ID had been registered by its previous consultant. The matter came before the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, on a preliminary hearing, and was decided by oral order dated 30.07.2025.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the outer limit of three months plus one month prescribed under Section 107 of the KGST Act for filing an appeal is an absolute bar, or whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can still apply to condone further delay.
  2. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in rejecting the appeal without considering the petitioner's application for condonation of delay on merits.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Though Section 107(4) of the KGST Act provides for filing an appeal within three months, extendable by one month, this does not operate as an absolute bar to entertaining an appeal filed later if an application is made under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation.
  • Reliance was placed on the coordinate Bench decision in M/S. Mahila Grahakar Sahakar Sangh Niyamit vs. Joint Commissioner of GST (Appeals), Kalaburagi, which itself followed a Calcutta High Court ruling applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act to GST appeals.
  • The delay was attributable to non-receipt of communication because an incorrect email ID had been registered by the petitioner's previous consultant, constituting sufficient cause.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Additional Government Advocate contended that the petitioner was bound to file the appeal within the time prescribed under Section 107, but did not dispute that the Calcutta High Court, in similar circumstances, had held Section 5 of the Limitation Act applicable to such appeals.

Court Order / Findings

  • Following its own coordinate Bench ruling in Mahila Grahakar Sahakar Sangh Niyamit, which in turn relied on the Calcutta High Court's decision in Arvind Gupta vs. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue State Taxes, the Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to an appeal filed against an order passed by the Assessing Authority under the KGST Act.
  • Considering that the petitioner had not received communication due to an incorrect email ID registered by its previous consultant, the Court found the petitioner entitled to seek condonation of delay.
  • The writ petition was allowed and the impugned order dated 23.07.2025 rejecting the appeal was set aside.
  • The matter was remitted to the Appellate Authority to consider the condonation application on merits and in accordance with law.

Important Clarification

  • The outer limit of three months plus one month under Section 107 of the KGST/CGST Act does not necessarily foreclose recourse to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, where sufficient cause for the further delay can be shown.
  • A bona fide error such as an incorrect email ID registered by a professional consultant, resulting in non-receipt of communication, can constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing a GST appeal.
  • An Appellate Authority cannot mechanically reject a delayed appeal on limitation alone without examining the condonation application on its merits.

Sections Involved

  • Section 107, Karnataka GST Act, 2017 - prescribes the limitation period of three months (extendable by one month) for filing an appeal against an adjudication order.
  • Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963 - permits condonation of delay in filing an appeal or application where sufficient cause is shown, held here to be applicable to GST appeals.

Decision - In Favour of

Decided in favour of the assessee. The order rejecting the appeal as time-barred was set aside, with the condonation application to be reconsidered on merits by the Appellate Authority.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 202221 of 2025 (T-RES)
Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC-K:4285
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar
Date of Decision: 30.07.2025

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.