Karnataka HC Restores Mining Firm’s GST Appeal Filed 24 Days Beyond the 120-Day Limit, Citing Lack of Notice; Orders Merits Hearing

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court should condone the delay in filing the statutory appeal where the appellate authority had dismissed it as time-barred.

The court held

The writ petition was allowed. The appellate order dated 12 June 2026 was set aside, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the matter was remanded to the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) for adjudication on the merits, with appropriate opportunity to the petitioner and in accordance with the directions stated by the Court.

It also directed

All contentions were left open.

01Facts

The petitioner, a registered mining dealer, challenged an adjudication order dated 6 December 2023 under Section 73 of the KGST/CGST Acts, which confirmed proposed tax, interest and penalty relating to alleged excess input tax credit and non-payment of tax under the reverse charge mechanism on royalty. The petitioner asserted that the prior intimation and show-cause notice were not served and that it had no effective opportunity to respond.

pp. 4–5

Its statutory appeal was dismissed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), including on limitation grounds. The petitioner then sought writ relief against both the adjudication and appellate orders.

pp. 5–6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court should condone the delay in filing the statutory appeal where the appellate authority had dismissed it as time-barred.

pp. 6–7, 9–10

ii.2. Whether, in the circumstances, the appellate order should be set aside and the appeal remitted for decision on its merits.

pp. 7–10

03Law Applied

Section 107 of the KGST/CGST Acts governs statutory appeals and the time available to file them; the Court noted that the statutory authorities could not condone delay beyond 120 days.

p. 9

The Court nevertheless exercised its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, relying on M/s. Trupti Agro Needs v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Others and the authorities referred to in that decision, including Yallappa Patil v. Assistant Commissioner and Others, for granting relief in comparable circumstances. The Court treated lack of notification of the earlier notice and demand, together with the short delay, as grounds for allowing the petitioner an opportunity to pursue its appeal.

pp. 7–9

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

KARNATAKA GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017 Section 73 Section 50

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 73 Section 50

04Reasoning

Although the statutory authority could not condone delay beyond the statutory limit, the Court considered that the petitioner claimed it had not been notified of the proceedings giving rise to the demand and that the delay was 24 days beyond the 120-day period.

p. 9

Applying the cited precedent and its writ jurisdiction, the Court concluded that denying consideration of the appeal on that technical ground would deny the petitioner a substantive opportunity. It therefore set aside the appellate order, condoned the delay and directed a merits adjudication after giving the petitioner an appropriate opportunity.

pp. 9–10