Appeal filed on last day of extended amnesty period held valid; rejection for delay set aside

Issue

Whether an appellate authority can reject an appeal as time-barred when the taxpayer filed it on the last date (31-10-2023) specified in a special government notification (Notification No. 29/2023) that extended the limitation period for such cases.

Facts

Underlying Dispute: The petitioner-assessee had applied for transitional credit, which was rejected by the adjudicating authority.
Missed Deadline: The assessee did not challenge the rejection order within the standard statutory period of 3-4 months prescribed under Section 107.
Amnesty Notification: The Central Government issued Notification No. 29/2023, providing a special window for taxpayers to file appeals against orders passed under Sections 73/74 within a specific timeframe (up to 31-10-2023).
Filing Date: Relying on this notification, the petitioner filed the appeal on 31-10-2023, which was the very last date of the extended period.
Rejection: Despite the notification, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal on the grounds of limitation, seemingly applying the standard rules instead of the special extension.

Decision

Authority’s Error: The High Court held that the Appellate Authority failed to consider the specific beneficial provision of Notification No. 29/2023.
Timely Filing: Since the notification explicitly permitted filing appeals on or before 31-10-2023, and the petitioner filed exactly on that date, the appeal was well within the law.
Order Quashed: The dismissal of the appeal as “barred by limitation” was erroneous and contrary to the notification. The impugned order was set aside.
Remand: The matter was remitted back to the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal on its merits (i.e., the actual transitional credit claim) without any further reference to limitation.

Key Takeaways

Amnesty Means Amnesty: Special notifications extending limitation periods (often called “Amnesty Schemes”) override the standard timelines in Section 107 for the specified class of orders.
Last Day Counts: Filing on the last day of a deadline is legally valid, though risky. Authorities cannot arbitrarily reject it if it falls within the calendar day specified.
Check Notifications: When facing a time-barred appeal, always check for any standing notifications (like Notification 53/2023 or 29/2023) that might have reopened the window for old orders.

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

Hikal Ltd.

Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)-4^*

S.R.Krishna Kumar, J.

WRIT PETITION NO. 23361 OF 2024 (T-RES)

DECEMBER 10, 2025

Pradyumna Hejib, Adv. for the Petitioner. Hema Kumar K., AGA for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. In this petition, the petitioner seeks a following reliefs;

“(a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ to quash the impugned Order bearing T.No965/23-24 [GST A.P. No. 168/2023-24] dated 29.12.2023 passed by Respondent No.1 [Annexure-A] issued by the Respondent;

(b) Grant such other order or direction as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner having filed an application seeking for allowing transitional credit, the second respondent issued a notice dated 15.02.2023 proposing to reject the petitioner’s application. The petitioner having submitted a reply dated 18.02.2023 to the said notice, the second respondent passed an order dated 21.02.2023 notifying the petitioner’s claim for credit.

4. Though the petitioner had to challenge the said order dated 21.02.2023 within a period of four months (3+1) as contemplated under Section 107(1) and 4 of the KGST Act. The Central Government having issued notification No.29/2023 enabling the tax payers to file appeals under Section 107 within a period of 3 months from the date of the notification issued on 31.07.2023. The petitioner filed the appeal before the first respondent appellate authority on 31.10.2023 which was the last date for filing the appeal as per the said notification. Despite the petitioner having filed the appeal on 31.10.2023 which was the last date of limitation as stipulated in the notification No.29/2023 dated 31.07.2023, the first respondent has proceeded to pass the impugned order dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

5. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the first respondent – appellate authority has failed to consider or taking into account the aforesaid Notification No.29/2023 dated 31.07.2023 which permitted/enabled the petitioner to file an appeal on or before 31.10.2023.

6. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order at Annexure-A passed by the first respondent – appellate authority dismissing the appeal as being barred by limitation is clearly erroneous and contrary to the aforesaid notification warranting interference by this Court in the present petition which deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 29.12.2023 and remitting the matter back to the first respondent for re-consideration of the appeal on merits and in accordance with law, without reference to the period 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)

The impugned order at Annexure-A dated 29.12.2023 is thereby set aside.

(iii)

The matter is remitted back to the first respondent/appellate authority for reconsideration of the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits without reference to the period of limitation which stands concluded in favour of the petitioner by this order and by holding that the appeal is within time and not barred by limitation.

(iv)

The first respondent – appellate authority shall consider the appeal on merits and dispose of the same in accordance with law after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.