Karnataka High Court
M/S Enn Ess Royal Automotive Pvt Ltd vs State Of Karnataka on 26 March, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:12921
WP No. 30787 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 30787 OF 2024 (T-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S ENN ESS ROYAL AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD.,
KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA,
NO.123, 2ND PHASE,
ANTARASANAHALLI,
TUMKUR - 572 106,
(REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR
SMT. SARASWATHI N. S.,
AGED 48 YEARS)
REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K. M. SHIVAYOGISWAMY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
Digitally
BANGALORE - 560 001.
signed by REP. BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY
NANDINI D
Location:
High Court 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
of
Karnataka (AUDIT)-2, IIND FLOOR, VANIJYA THERIGEGALA SANKEERNA,
80 FEET ROAD, SIDDARMESHWARA EXTENSION,
TUMKURU - 572 101.
3. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES
(KARNTAKAK), DEPRTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA,
KALIDASA MARG. GANDHI NAGAR,
BNEGALURU - 560 009.
4. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES
(APPEALS) - 6, 2ND FLOOR, BMTC,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:12921
WP No. 30787 of 2024
TTMC 'B' BLOCK, SHANTHI NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 027.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. HEMA KUMAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 BEARING
NO. GST/AP.NO.120/2023-24 DATED 13.02.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-D
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned Order
at Annexure-D dated 13.02.2024 passed by respondent No.4,
whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 107
of the CGST / KGST Act, 2017 was dismissed on the ground of the
limitation.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA
for respondents and perused the material on record.
3. The material on record discloses that aggrieved by the
impugned penalty order dated 30.11.2022 passed by the second
respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second
respondent in the bonafide / wrong impression that it was the
NC: 2025:KHC:12921
Appellate Authority. It is the contention of the petitioner that
subsequently he realized that the appellate authority was actually
the respondent No.4 and not the respondent No.2, as a result of
which the appeal preferred by the petitioner before respondent
No.2 was before the wrong forum and consequently the petitioner
preferred one more appeal on 25.08.2023 before respondent No.4
and sought for exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation
Act. In addition thereto, the petitioner places reliance upon the
notification issued by the Government of India by the Central Board
of Indirect Taxes (CBIT) and Customs dated 02.11.2023 which
extends the time for appeals preferred up to 31.01.2024. Under
these circumstances, it is contended that the respondent
committed an error in issuing impugned endorsement summarily
dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation and the same
deserves to be set aside.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP submits that in the light of the
undisputed fact that the petitioner had preferred the instant appeal
before the fourth respondent only on 25.08.2023 beyond the
prescribed and condonable period of 120 days (90 + 30) the
respondent was justified in dismissing the appeal as barred by
NC: 2025:KHC:12921
limitation by passing the impugned orders which does not warrant
interference in the present petition.
5. A perusal of the impugned endorsement issued by the
respondent will indicate that the appeal was dismissed on the sole
ground of being barred by limitation, in the light of the prescribed
period and condonable period of 120 days, as contemplated under
Section 107 of the KGST Act, 2017. While it is true that Section
29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 excludes the applicability of
Section 5 of the Limitation Act for the purpose of condonation of
delay is concerned, Section 14 of the Limitation Act which excludes
time spent before a wrong / incorrect forum for the purpose of
concluding the prescribed period is applicable to an appeal
preferred under Section 107 of the KGST Act in the light of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Deputy
Commissioner and Special Acquisition Officer, Bangalore v/s
M/s. S.V Global Mill Limited - MFA No.3806/2018 dated
25.09.2019.
6. It is also necessary to point out that as per circular issued
by the CBIT, the period prescribed for preferring the appeal has
been extended up to 31.01.2024 and on this ground also,
NC: 2025:KHC:12921
respondent No.4 committed an error in issuing the impugned order
at Annexure-D, which deserves to be set aside and necessary
directions are to be issued to respondent No.4 to consider the
appeal on merits, without reference to the issue/question of
limitation which stands concluded in favour of the petitioner, by this
order.
7. In the result, I pass the following
ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed
(ii) Impugned order at Annexure-D dated 13.02.2024
passed by respondent No.4, is hereby set aside
(iii) The respondent No.4 - Appellate Authority is
directed to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner on
merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law
without reference to the issue/question of limitation which
stands concluded in favour of the petitioner under this order.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
BMC
