Karnataka High Court
M/S Siddanna vs Joint Commissioner on 30 July, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4286
WP No. 202218 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 202218 OF 2025 (T-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S. SIDDANNA
THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. SIDDANNA
S/O YASHWANTRAO PATIL,
AGE: 69 YEARS,
OCC: MANAGING PARTNER,
M/S. SIDDANNA,
R/O: PLOT NO.02 POST OFFICE ROAD,
GODUTAI COLONLY, KALABURAGI - 585 310.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI YASHAS S. DIKSHIT, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by KHAJAAMEEN AND:
MALAGHAN
Location: HIGH 1. JOINT COMMISSIONER,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA OF COMMERCIAL TAX (APPEAL),
KALABURAGI DIVISION,
VKT BUILDING, NEAR RAILWAY STATION,
STATION BAZAR, KALABURAGI - 585 102.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER GOODS AND SERVICE
TAXES / COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, LGSTO - 525,
NEAR RAILWAY STATION, KALABURAGI - 585 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, A.G.A.)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4286
WP No. 202218 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE ORDER
23-07-2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN
GST.AP:531/2024-25/706/1, WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-C,
CONSEQUENTIALLY, CONDONE THE DELAY AND FURTHER
DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.2 TO HEAR THE APPEAL FILED BY
THE PETITIONER HEREIN ON MERIT, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR
AMARANNAVAR
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the order dated
23.07.2025 passed by respondent No.1 in case
No.GST:AP:531/2024/25/706/1.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4286
HC-KAR
02. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Additional Government Advocate for the
respondents.
03. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
contend that even though the Sub-Section 4 of the
Section 107 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act,
2017 (for short, 'the KGST Act, 2017'), provides for filing
an appeal within 03 months and extendable by one month,
does not bar entertaining the appeal beyond the said
period, if an application is made under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act seeking condonation of the delay. On that
point he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the
case of M/S. Mahila Grahakar Sahakar Sangh Niyamit
vs. The Joint Commissioner of Goods and Service
Tax (Appeals) Kalaburagi and another in
W.P.No.200569/2025 (T-RES) disposed of on
28.02.2025.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4286
HC-KAR
04. The petitioner has filed appeal after prescribed
period along with an application for condonation of delay.
However, the appellate authority i.e., respondent No.1
rejected the appeal on the ground that the appeal was not
filed within three months plus one month, as prescribed
under Section 107 of the KGST Act, 2017. The Coordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of M/S. Mahila Grahakar
Sahakar Sangh Niyamit (Supra) placing reliance on the
decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta, has held
as under:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
the petitioner is entitled to seek for condonation
of delay by explaining the reason for not filing
the appeal in time. He submits that Section 5 of
the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act,
1963') is applicable to an appeal filed by the
petitioner. In support of his contentions, he
relied upon the judgment of the High Court of
Calcutta in Arvind Gupta Vs. Assistant
Commissioner of Revenue State Taxes,
Cooch Behar Charge and Others1.
WPA/2904/2023
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4286
HC-KAR
Learned Additional Government Advocate though
contended that the petitioner was bound to file
an appeal within the time prescribed, did not
dispute the fact that the Calcutta High Court in
similar circumstances had held that Section 5 of
the Act, 1963 was applicable to an appeal filed
against an order passed by the Assessing
Authority."
05. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the said
case has held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is
applicable to an appeal filed against an order passed by
the Assessing Authority.
06. In view of the aforesaid and in view of the fact
that the petitioner has not received the communication
due to incorrect email I.D. registered by his previous
consultant, the petitioner was entitled to seek condonation
of delay. Accordingly, the following;
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4286
HC-KAR
ORDER
I. The Writ Petition is allowed.
II. The impugned order dated 23.07.2025 passed by
respondent No.1 in case No. GST : AP : 531 / 2024 /
25 / 706 / 1, is set-aside.
III. The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1, who
shall consider the application filed by the petitioner
seeking condonation of delay, on merits and in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
KJJ
CT:VK
