Karnataka HC Revives Marble Trader’s GST Appeal After 299-Day Delay, Conditional On An Extra 10% Tax Deposit Within Two Weeks

The petitioner, a GST-registered marble and granite business, challenged an assessment order for tax period 2018–19 raising demands arising from a mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, alleged short payment of tax under the reverse-charge mechanism on royalty and DMG, and a mismatch between bills of lading and invoices.

The petitioner had filed objections and supporting documents before the first respondent, which nevertheless issued an order and Form GST DRC-07 dated 29 November 2023.

The petitioner’s appeal under Section 107 was filed 299 days beyond the condonable period.

The Appellate Authority dismissed it as time-barred, holding that it could condone delay only within the additional one-month period permitted by statute.

The petitioner then sought writ relief, including restoration of the appeal for determination on its merits.

Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Acts governs appeals to the Appellate Authority and provides the statutory limitation framework: an appeal must be filed within the prescribed period, with delay condonable only within the further period allowed by the statute, as recorded in the Appellate Authority’s order.

The Court relied on the Division Bench decision in Yallappa Patil v. Assistant Commissioner and Others, W.A. No. 100608/2025, and the coordinate-bench decisions in Jai Hind Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Others and Bandigisab Maheboobsab Bijapur v. Assistant Commissioner and Others, as well as a similar coordinate-bench ruling discussed in the judgment.

Those decisions supported granting writ relief in comparable circumstances by setting aside the appellate dismissal, condoning delay, and directing a merits determination.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal solely because the delay exceeded the period it was statutorily empowered to condone; the merits of the petitioner’s tax challenge were therefore not considered.

Having regard to the cited Division Bench and coordinate-bench decisions granting relief in comparable cases, the Court extended the same approach to the petitioner.

It accordingly set aside the dismissal and condoned the delay, while conditioning restoration of the appeal on payment of an additional 10% of the tax in demand.

The order dated 24 June 2025 dismissing the appeal was set aside, and the delay in filing the appeal was condoned.

The appeal was restored to the Appellate Authority’s file, subject to the petitioner paying an additional 10% of the tax in demand within two weeks.

The petitioner was directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on 13 November 2026, and the Authority was directed to dispose of the appeal on its merits, as expeditiously as possible and within four weeks of the first appearance.

All contentions were left open.