Disposed

M/S R S G Logistics v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (AUDIT)-1

Karnataka HC14 Nov 2024WP/30266/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A GST-registered logistics firm filed an appeal under Section 107 beyond limitation after its rectification application against an adjudication order was rejected. The High Court set aside the appellate rejection and remanded, directing that the period spent pursuing the rectification application be excluded from limitation.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 18.05.2024 rejecting the appeal set aside; matter remanded to respondent No.2 to hear the appeal excluding rectification-application time from limitation.

M/S R S G Logistics Vs Deputy Commissioner of… — GST and Indirect Tax | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:46201 WP No. 30266 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 30266 OF 2024 (T-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S R.S.G. LOGISTICS,

¶10

A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932, SHOP NO.16, APMC BUILDING, BAIKAMPADY, MANGALURU - 575 011. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI RATHAN KUMAR SHETTY, S/O. SRI KALIMAR VASU SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. VANI H., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by CHAITHANYA K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT)-1, DGSTO MANGALURU, 3^RD FLOOR, VANIJYA THERIGE BHAVANA, MAIDAN ROAD, MANGALURU-575 001.

¶16

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS), VANIJYA THERIGE BHAVANA, 2^ND FLOOR, MAIDAN ROAD, MANGALURU-575 001.

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (GST WING), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMDEKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. JYOTI M.MARADI, HCGP)

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:46201 WP No. 30266 of 2024

¶21

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ADJUDICATION ORDER BEARING NO.DCCT(A)-1/19/2023-24 DATED 29.08.2023 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING ORDER NO.DCCT(A)-1/19/2023-24 DATED 04.01.2024 (SIC.4.1.2023) ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner is a partnership firm involved in the business of logistics and registered under the provisions of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Karnataka

¶26

Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'the Acts'). Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and respondent No.1 passed an adjudication order dated 29.08.2023 under Section 73(9) read with Sections 50 and 122 of the Acts (vide Annexure-D to the writ petition). The petitioner within 90 days thereafter, preferred a rectification application on 26.10.2023. He did not prefer an appeal. The rectification application was rejected on

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:46201 WP No. 30266 of 2024

¶28

04.01.2024 by respondent No.1, on the ground that there is no error apparent on the face of record in respect of adjudicating order passed by him. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 107 of the Act before respondent No.2. The said appeal was filed on 10.02.2024. The same came to be rejected on the ground that the original adjudication order dated 29.08.2023 and

¶29

the appeal filed is beyond the period of limitation calculated from the said date. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶30

During the course of arguments, the counsel for petitioner submitted that bonafide the petitioner believed that there was an error apparent on the face of the record and hence, instead of filing the appeal under Section 107 of Act, it filed an application for rectification of the order and the appeal is filed challenging the original adjudicating

¶31

order and not merely the rectification order and under the said circumstances, she prays that time spent by the

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:46201 WP No. 30266 of 2024

¶33

petitioner pursuing the rectification application be

¶34

excluded.

¶35

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader upon instructions justifies the order passed by respondent No.2 and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶36

In the instant case, admittedly, the adjudication order was passed on 29.08.2023. The petitioner could have preferred an appeal but chose to file rectification application and the same was filed on 26.10.2023. If it were to file an appeal instead of rectification application, the same would have been within the limitation. After rejection of the rectification application, petitioner has realized that it was not the appropriate step that it should have taken and on the contrary, it should have preferred an appeal. Further, the petitioner has not delayed filing an appeal after disposal of the rectification application. Under the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this

¶37

Court is of the opinion it would be appropriate to direct respondent No.2 to consider the period of limitation by

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:46201 WP No. 30266 of 2024

¶39

deducting the time spent by the petitioner in pursuing the rectification application before respondent No.1 and thereafter proceed with the appeal on merits. Hence, the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i) The impugned order dated 18.05.2024 bearing No.JCCT(APL)MNG/2023-24 passed by respondent No.2 (vide Annexure-G to the writ petition) is hereby set aside;

¶42

ii) The matter is remanded back to respondent No.2 to hear the petitioner, excluding the time spent by the petitioner pursuing the rectification application before respondent No.1 while computing the period of limitation and proceed with the case;

¶43

iii) The petitioner shall appear before respondent No.2 without further notice on 12.12.2024 at 2.30 p.m.;

¶44

iv) Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶45

SD/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶46

PGG

M/S R S G Logistics v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (AUDIT)-1

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S R S G Logistics v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (AUDIT)-1

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Parvathamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. L Jitendra Jain Vs the Government of Karnataka

Gopalappa Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Enternity Structures Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (AUDIT)-3.2

Atm Retail Vs Union of India

Karnataka Bank Limited Vs Additional /Joint/Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax / Income Tax Officer