Hikal Ltd Vs Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Date: December 9, 2025
Subject Matter
GST Appeal Not Time-Barred if Filed Within Extended Period of Notification
Summary
The petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 passed by the appellate authority is set aside. The Court found that the appellate authority erroneously dismissed the petitioner's appeal as time-barred, failing to consider Notification No. 29/2023, which extended the limitation period for filing appeals under Section 107 of the KGST Act.
Summary of Facts and Dispute:
- Impugned Action: The first respondent, the appellate authority, issued an order bearing T.No965/23-24 [GST A.P. No. 168/2023-24] dated 29.12.2023, dismissing the petitioner's appeal as barred by limitation. This appeal was filed against an earlier order dated 21.02.2023, which notified the petitioner's claim for transitional credit.
- Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the appeal was filed on 31.10.2023, which was precisely the last date permitted for filing appeals under Section 107, as extended by Central Government Notification No. 29/2023 dated 31.07.2023.
- Core Question of Law: Whether the appellate authority erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred, despite the petitioner filing it within the extended period of limitation provided by Central Government Notification No. 29/2023 for appeals under Section 107.
Key Legal Issues & Findings:
Validity of Limitation Period Calculation under Notification No. 29/2023
The Court considered the effect of the Central Government's Notification No. 29/2023 on the statutory limitation period for appeals.
- Erroneous Dismissal: The appellate authority dismissed the petitioner's appeal as time-barred without considering or taking into account Notification No. 29/2023 dated 31.07.2023.
- Extension of Limitation: Notification No. 29/2023 specifically allowed taxpayers to file appeals under Section 107 within a period of 3 months from its issuance on 31.07.2023, making 31.10.2023 the final date for filing.
- Compliance by Petitioner: The petitioner had duly filed the appeal on 31.10.2023, which was within the extended limitation period stipulated by the said notification.
- Warranted Interference: The impugned order of dismissal was therefore deemed clearly erroneous and contrary to the notification, warranting interference by the High Court.
Ruling:
- Outcome: The petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 passed by the first respondent – appellate authority is set aside.
- Directions: The matter is remitted back to the first respondent/appellate authority for reconsideration of the appeal filed by the petitioner on its merits and in accordance with law, after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.
- Liberty: The appellate authority shall consider the appeal without reference to the period of limitation, as the Court has concluded that the appeal is within time and not barred by limitation.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
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 re- consideration 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.