Sri V S Paramesh v. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)

e -e1e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:14231 WP(No.(4692(of(2026 IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( THDATED(THIS(THE(10 (DAY(OF(MARCH,(2026( BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(S(SUNIL(DUTT(YADAV( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(4692(OF(2026((T-RES) BETWEEN:(

¶1SRI,V.,S.,PARAMESH,, AGED,54,YEARS,, SON,OF,SANNABOOTHA,BHOVI,, NO.1,,VADDARAHATTI,, ANNEGERE,POST,, PANCHANAHALLI,, KADUR,TALUK,,, CHICKMAGALUR,DIST,-,577,548. …PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,NAVEEN,G.S,,ADVOCATE), Digitally signedtiby AND: VIJAYA0P Location: HIGH0COURT

1.OF JOINT,COMMISSIONER,OF,, KARNATAKA COMMERCIAL,TAXES,(APPEALS),, MALNAD,DIVISION,, VANIJYA,TERIGE,BHAVANA,,, 12TH,CROSS,,A,BLOCK,,, GOPALAGOWDA,EXTENSION,,, SHIVAMOGGA,-,577,205.,

¶2ASSISTANT,COMMISSIONER,OF,, COMMERCIAL,TAXES,(AUDIT-1), VANIJYA,TERIGE,BHAVANA,,, e -e2e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:14231 WP(No.(4692(of(2026 12TH,CROSS,,A,BLOCK,,, GOPALAGOWDA,EXTENSION,, SHIVAMOGGA,-,577,205. …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,K.,HEMA,KUMAR,,AGA), ***, , THIS,W.P.,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLES,226,AND,227, OF,THE,CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,PRAYING,TO,1.,ISSUE,A, WRIT, OF, CERTIORARI, OR, ANY, OTHER, APPROPRIATE, WRIT,,ORDER,OR,DIRECTION,QUASHING,THE,IMPUGNED, ORDER, DATED, 16.07.2025, PASSED, BY, RESPONDENT-1,, UNDER,SECTION,107,OF,THE,CGST/KGST,ACT,,2017,,FOR, THE, TAX, PERIOD, 2017-18,, AND, PRODUCED, AS, ANNEXURE-H,, BEARING, NO.APPEAL, NO.GST/AP-410/2024-25,AS,BEING,ARBITRARY,,ILLEGAL,,VIOLATIVE, OF, THE, PRINCIPLES, OF, NATURAL, JUSTICE, AND, CONTRARY,TO,LAW,AND,ETC.,,, , THIS, PETITION,, COMING, ON, FOR, PRELIMINARY, HEARING,, THIS, DAY,, ORDER, WAS, MADE, THEREIN, AS, UNDER:, CORAM: HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,S,SUNIL,DUTT,YADAV

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has sought for setting aside of the order at Annexure-H passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 for the tax period 2017-18. The petitioner has also sought for setting aside the order of adjudication at Annexure-C.

¶2It is noticed at the outset that the order of adjudication was passed on 29.12.2023. A perusal of the said order would indicate that, though the petitioner has made out a reply, however, the authority has adjudicated the proceedings after noticing that the petitioner has not appeared on the subsequent dates nor replied to the show cause notice.

¶3The petitioner then filed an application seeking rectification on 15.03.2024 at Annexure-D, which is rejected by way of an order dated 23.04.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an appeal, which came to be

disposed of in terms of the order at Annexure-H on the sole ground that the appeal was filed beyond the period prescribed. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the matter and while observing that the delay could not be condoned, the appeal was rejected.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the time for filing the appeal is to be calculated from the date of the endorsement/order rejecting the rectification application i.e. 23.04.2024 and if so calculated, the appeal filed could be stated to have been filed within time. Such aspect is not controverted by the respondents.

¶5Learned Additional Government Advocate, however, submits that the period for filing the appeal would be calculated from the date of the order-in-original and not from the date of the endorsement/order rejecting the rectification application. It is further submitted that the petitioner has also failed to challenge the order rejecting the rectification request.

¶6The order-in-original was passed on

29.12.2023. Admittedly, in terms of Section 107 of the CGST/KGST Act, the petitioner ought to have filed the appeal within an outer limit of four months, being three months extendable by a further period of one month. However, it must be noticed that the petitioner had filed an application for rectification, which came to be rejected as per the order/endorsement dated 23.04.2024.

¶7Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the substantive remedy which would be appropriate would be remedy of appeal and that, under a bona fide wrong advice, the petitioner prosecuted the rectification proceedings. Such explanation could be accepted and the time spent in pursuing the rectification application could be taken note of as time spent under a bona fide belief before a wrong forum.

¶8Consequently, noticing that the appeal was filed on 18.07.2024, which is within a period of four months

from the date of the order rejecting the application for rectification, it would meet the ends of justice by directing that the appeal be reheard on its merits.

¶9Accordingly, the order at Annexure-H is set aside. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The appeal to be taken on record and re-adjudicated, keeping open all contentions.

¶10In light of the above, the petition is disposed of. SD/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10