[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Reserved On: 31.01.2026 vs Union Territory Of J And Kthrough on 5 February, 2026
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
2026:JKLHC-JMU:164-DB
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CJ Court WP(C) No. 133/2026
CM No. 320/2026
Reserved on: 31.01.2026
Pronounced on: 05.02.2026
Uploaded on: 05.02.2026
Whether the operative part or full judgment
is pronounced: Full judgment.
M/s Navayuga Engineering Company
Limited (A company incorporated under the
provisions of Companies Act, 1956) 363
Sector 4 Channi Himmat Jammu-180015
Through authorized signatory Mr. Sridhar
Das Age 62 years S/o Sh. Manindra Chandra
Das R/o 193 Indira Gandhi Road Konnagar
M Hooghly, West Bengal-712235
.....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Sachin Sharma, Advocate.
Vs
1. Union Territory of J and KThrough
Additional Chief Secretary Finance
Department, Civil Secretariat Jammu.
2. Commissioner of State Taxes 2nd Floor ..... Respondent(s)
Excise and Taxation Department Railway
Head Complex Panama Chowk Gandhi
Nagar Jammu-180012.
3. Dy. Commissioner of State Taxes
(Appeals-1) 2nd Floor Excise and
Taxation Department Railway Head
Complex Panama Chowk Gandhi Nagar
Jammu-180012.
4. State Tax Officer Circle H, Ground
Floor Excise and Taxation Office
Railway Head Complex Panama Chowk
Gandhi Nagar, Jammu.
Through: Ms. Sagira Jaffer, Assisting counsel to
Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG
WP(C) No. 133/2026 Page 1 of 4
2026:JKLHC-JMU:164-DB
Coram: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
'OSWAL-J'
1. Order dated 17.01.2025 passed by respondent No. 4 was assailed by the
petitioner through the medium of WP(C) No. 663/2025, titled, 'M/s
Navayuga Engineering Co. Ltd. vs. UT of J&K & Ors.' and the writ
petition was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 11.04.2025, whereby STO concerned was directed to consider the
reply, if any, submitted by the petitioner to the impugned show cause notice
and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks in accordance
with law. The petitioner was left free to work out the remedy against any
such order to be passed by the STO concerned. In respect of an appealable
order, the time spent by the petitioner before the Court was directed not to
be reckoned towards calculating the period of limitation.
2. Thereafter, the petitioner assailed the order dated 17.01.2025 before
respondent No. 3 through the medium of appeal accompanied with an
application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal but the same
was dismissed by respondent No. 3 on the ground of it being time barred
vide order dated 19.01.2026.
3. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 19.01.2026 primarily on the
ground that the last date for filing of appeal after excluding 26 days was
12.05.2025 but in terms of Section 107(4) of J&K SGST, 2017/CGST Act
2017, the delay till 11.06.2025 in filing the appeal could have been
condoned by respondent No. 3 but respondent No. 3 dismissed the
2026:JKLHC-JMU:164-DB
application along with the appeal despite the fact that the delay in filing the
appeal was fully explained and there was no deliberate attempt on the part
of the petitioner to file the appeal beyond the period of limitation. It is
urged that there was only marginal delay of 15 days, which could have
condoned in terms of Section 107(4) of the Act, particularly in view of the
proper explanation tendered by the petitioner.
4. Notice.
5. Ms. Sagira Jaffer, Assisting counsel to Mrs. Monika Kohli, learned Sr.
AAG waives notice. After receiving instructions, she has submitted that in
view of the legal point involved, the respondents would not file the
response and as such, the matter may be finally considered on the basis of
record.
6. Heard and perused the record.
7. The limitation period for the order dated 17.01.2025 originally expired on
16.04.2025. However, the petitioner spent 26 days i.e. from 17.03.2025 to
11.04.2025, in pursuing a writ petition before this Court. In terms of order
of the Coordinate Bench to exclude this time, the last date for filing the
appeal stood extended to 12.05.2025. Consequently, the present appeal
having been filed on 28.05.2025 suffers from a delay of 15 days, for which
condonation was sought.
8. A perusal of the order impugned reveals that respondent No. 3 has taken
note of the cause projected by the petitioner regarding Indo-Pak conflict
during May, 2025 but has observed, as to why the petitioner did not prefer
the appeal before 07.05.2025 and on that ground only, dismissed the
application seeking condonation of delay along with the appeal. In terms of
2026:JKLHC-JMU:164-DB
Section 107(4) of the Act, the Appellate Authority, if satisfied that the
appellant was prevented from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid
period of three months or six months as the case may be, can allow it to be
presented within a period of one month, meaning thereby, that if the
appellant demonstrates sufficient cause preventing him from presenting the
appeal within three months/six months, the appeal can be presented within
a further period of one month.
9. The grounds urged in the Petitioner's application for condonation of delay
can neither be termed as imaginary nor fanciful. Given that the delay was a
mere 15 days, Respondent No. 3 erred by adopting a hyper-technical
approach to 'knock out' the appeal at the threshold. Such a dismissal is
contrary to the spirit of Section 107(4) of the Act, which explicitly permits
the condonation of delay within an extended one-month window. Since the
limitation period (after legal exclusions) expired on 12.05.2025, the
Respondents' insistence that the appeal should have been preferred by
07.05.2025 is logically flawed and legally unsustainable; it effectively
curtails the statutory period granted to the Petitioner.
10. Accordingly, we set aside the order dated 19.01.2026 and condone the
delay in filing the appeal and remit the matter to respondent No. 3 for
adjudication of the appeal on merits.
11. Disposed of.
(RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Jammu
05.02.2026
Neha-II
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No.
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
