An unreasoned rejection of a delay condonation application

An unreasoned rejection of a delay condonation application by the appellate authority is legally unsustainable.

Issue

Whether the first appellate authority is legally justified under Section 107 in rejecting a 371-day delay condonation application without considering the supporting affidavit or providing detailed, speaking reasons.

Facts

The proceedings against the petitioner originated from an assessment or demand order passed by the proper officer under Section 73(9) for the tax period 2020-21.
Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed a first appeal before the designated Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 2).
Along with the appeal, the petitioner submitted an application seeking the condonation of a 371-day delay in filing, which was supported by a detailed explanatory affidavit invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Respondent No. 2 summarily rejected the delay condonation application and dismissed the main appeal without assigning any structural reasons for the refusal.
The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court, challenging the validity of the summary rejection and dismissal.

Decision

Held, yes: Respondent No. 2 committed a legal error by failing to examine the specific factual statements and justifications detailed in the petitioner’s supporting affidavit.
Held, yes: The impugned appellate order disclosed an absolute lack of reasoning, making it a non-speaking order that reflects an evident non-application of mind.
Held, yes: On the sole ground of being an unreasoned, non-speaking order, the impugned dismissal is legally unsustainable and is set aside.
Held, yes: The statutory appeal is restored to its original file, and Respondent No. 2 is directed to reconsider the condonation application fresh after providing the petitioner with a mandatory personal hearing.

Key Takeaways

Duty to Record Reasons: The Appellate Authority under Section 107 acts in a quasi-judicial capacity. It cannot pass boilerplate or summary dismissal orders on limitation grounds without clearly stating the logical reasons behind its rejection.
Mandatory Evaluation of Affidavits: When a taxpayer submits an application for condonation of delay backed by an affidavit, the authority must judicially evaluate the merits of the reasons presented. Ignoring the evidence on record amounts to a procedural violation.
Hearing Before Rejection: Determining a delay condonation issue requires compliance with natural justice. An authority must extend a personal hearing to the appellant to discuss the delay before shutting the doors on the substantive appeal.

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

Nadagouda Roadlines (P.) Ltd.

Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit)^*

Ashok S. Kinagi, J.

WRIT PETITION NO. 201937 OF 2026 (T-RES)

MAY 12, 2026

Sandeep Vijaykumar, Adv. for the Petitioner. Smt. Maya T.R., HCGP for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. Petitioner filed this writ petition seeking to quash the show cause notice dated 20.02.2025 bearing No.ACCT(A)/BGK/AO/73/2024-25/B-932 issued by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-C and to quash the order dated 04.05.2026 passed in Appeal No.GST-927/2025-26 by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-D.

2. The brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ petition are as follows :-

The respondents issued show cause notices along with Form DRC-01 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, ‘the CGST Act, 2017’) for the tax period 2020-2021 to the petitioner dated 08.11.2024 and 26.11.2024. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notices. The respondents without considering the contentions raised in the reply notice, passed an order under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act, 2017 vide order dated 20.02.2025. The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act, 2017, preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 along with an application for condonation of delay of 371 days in preferring the appeal. Respondent No.2 vide order dated 04.05.2026 rejected the application for condonation of delay and consequently, dismissed the appeal. The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-D, filed this writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a delay in filing the appeal and the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within time. He submits that respondent No.2 without assigning any reasons has rejected the application for condonation of delay and consequently, dismissed the appeal. He submits that while considering the application for condonation of delay, the Court must be liberal.

5. In order to buttress his argument, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji and others reported in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji 66 STC 228 (SC)/AIR 1987 SC 1353. Hence, he submits that the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is contrary to the mandate laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mst. Katiji’s case (supra). He has also placed reliance on the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jaganu S/o Punnu Jadhav v. Asstt. Commissioner [W.P. No. 204128 of 2025, dated 24-4-2026]. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader supported the impugned order and submitted that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal and hence, respondent No.2 has rightly rejected the application and consequently dismissed the appeal. Therefore, on this ground, she prays to dismiss the writ petition.

7. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

8. It is an undisputed fact that respondent No.1 issued show cause notice dated 20.02.2025 to the petitioner under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act, 2017 and the said notice was replied by the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by the said notice preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 along with an application for condonation of delay of 371 days in filing the appeal. Respondent No.2 without considering the statement made in the affidavit accompanying the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, has proceeded to reject the application.

9. I have perused the impugned order passed by respondent No.2, wherein no reasons were assigned for rejecting the application for condonation of delay and consequently, the appeal was dismissed. As such, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is without application of mind. Hence, on this ground alone itself, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is liable to be set-aside.

10. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(i)

The writ petition is allowed in part;

(ii)

The order dated 04.05.2026 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-D is hereby quashed;

(iii)

The Appeal in No.GST-927/2025-26 is restored to its original file;

(iv)

The petitioner is directed to furnish the copy of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.204128/2025 to respondent No.2;

(v)

Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the application for condonation of delay in terms of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.204128/2025 dated 24.04.2026;

(vi)

Respondent No.2 is directed to pass an order after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders within a period of three months;

(vii)

The petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No.2 on 26.05.2026.