Delayed GST appeal allowed on merits by condoning delay following precedent established in identical case.

By | July 6, 2026
0 Comment

Delayed GST appeal allowed on merits by condoning delay following precedent established in identical case.

Issue

Whether the Appellate Authority was justified in rejecting the petitioner’s statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/KGST Act solely on the ground of limitation (delay), or if the delay should be condoned to allow a decision on merits based on judicial precedent.

Facts

  • Registration: The petitioner is a proprietorship concern that held valid registration under both the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act and the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax (KGST) Act.

  • Cancellation: The tax authority issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) proposing the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration, found the petitioner’s subsequent reply unsatisfactory, and proceeded to cancel the registration.

  • Belated Appeal: Challenging the cancellation order, the petitioner filed an administrative appeal under Section 107 of the Act.

  • Rejection: The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal outright on the technical ground that it was time-barred (filed beyond the prescribed statutory limitation period).

  • Writ Petition: Aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court, seeking to quash the appellate order and requesting a direction to have the matter decided on its actual merits.

Decision

  • Precedent Followed: The High Court observed that in an identical factual matrix—specifically the case of R M Chougule and Associated v. Asstt. CCT (Writ Petition No. 101618 of 2025)—delayed appeals concerning registration cancellation had been permitted.

  • Order Set Aside: Following the principle of parity and the established precedent, the court allowed the writ petition in part and set aside the impugned rejection order passed by the Appellate Authority.

  • Remand for Merits: The court permitted the petitioner to pursue the appeal, explicitly directing the Appellate Authority to consider the matter strictly on its merits and not reject it on the grounds of limitation.

Key Takeaways

  • Precedent Drives Equity: Courts will apply consistency across similar cases; if a timeline relaxation is granted to one taxpayer under identical circumstances, it should be extended to others.

  • Substance Over Technicality: In matters affecting the fundamental survival of a business (like GST registration cancellation), judiciary tends to favor deciding disputes on substantive merits rather than dismissing them on rigid timelines.

  • Writ Remedy for Delay: When statutory appellate authorities lack the power to condone delay beyond a certain point under Section 107, approaching the High Court under writ jurisdiction remains a viable remedy to seek relief.

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Bandigisab Maheboobsab Bijapur
v.
Assistant Commissioner
M. Nagaprasanna, J.
WRIT PETITION NO. 108239 OF 2025 (T-RES)
NOVEMBER  5, 2025
H.R. Kambiyavar, Adv. for the Petitioner. T. Hanumareddy, AGA and M.B. Kanavi, Adv. for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:
a. Issue Writ of Certiorari or in the like nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order bearing Appeal No.GST-462/2024-25/b-1065, dated 03.01.2025, passed by respondent No.2 vide ANNEXURE-D, to the petition.
b. Issue writ of Mandamus or like in the nature of directing the Respondent no.1 and 2 to pass the order on merits of the case.
c. Pass such other Order or further Orders as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit in the facts and circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.H.R.Kambiyavar, appearing for petitioner, learned AGA-Sri.T.Hanumareddy, appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 and learned counsel Sri.M.B.Kanavi, appearing for respondent No.4.
3. The petitioner is a proprietorship concern registered under the Provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CGST Act’ for short) and the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the KGST Act’ for short). The issue relates to the issuance of a show-cause notice as to why the registration of the petitioner should not be cancelled. The cancellation ensued upon the authority not being satisfied with the petitioner’s reply. The petitioner then seeks to file an appeal invoking Section 107 of the CGST Act, which was rejected on the ground of limitation.
4. In identical circumstances, this Court has permitted appeals to be filed despite the delay in R M Chougule and Associated v. Asstt. CCT [Writ Petition No.101618 of 2025, dated 29-10-2025], wherein this Court has held as follows.
1. “Petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:
a. “Issue Writ of Certiorari or in the like nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order bearing no. Appeal No. GST-227/2024-25/B-491, dated 30/09/2024, passed by respondent no. 2. vide ANNEXURE-C, to the petition.
b. Consequently or in the like nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order bearing no. ACCT/A-5/RECTIFICATION/2023-24 dated 21.11.2023, passed by respondent no. 1 vide ANNEXURE-A.
c. Pass such other order of further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit in the facts and circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner notwithstanding the fact of payment of complete tax, the assessment is drawn against him, against which an appeal is preferred and the appeal is rejected on the sole ground of delay.
3. The learned counsel submits that the issue in the lis stands answered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No.107549/2024 disposed of on 21.01.2025.
4. In the light of the issue standing answered by this Court and that of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.100608/2025, the petition deserves to succeed in the same direction that is issued while disposing of Writ Petition No.107549 of 2024.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
i. Writ petition is allowed in part.
ii. The petitioner is permitted to file an appeal against the cancellation of registration before the Appellate Authority within four weeks from the date of the receipt of this order.
iii. In the event, the appeal is preferred within four weeks as aforesaid, it shall be considered on its merit and not reject the appeal on the ground of limitation.
iv. In the event, the petitioner would not prefer an appeal within four weeks as permitted above, the benefit of the order rendered in the subject petition would not be available to the petitioner.
Ordered accordingly.”
5. In the light of the Appellate Authority being directed to consider the appeal on its merits, the impugned order of the Appellate Authority is hereby set aside.
6. All other contentions are left open to be urged before the Appellate Authority.