M/S Inter Globe Trading Vs the Commissioner of… — GST and Indirect Tax | Karnataka HC (2025)

M/S Inter Globe Trading Vs the Commissioner of… — GST and Indirect Tax | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed in part: the third respondent's Order-in-Original dated 26.11.2024 [Annexure-D] quashed and the original proceedings restored for reconsideration; petitioner's representative directed to appear before the third respondent on 04.07.2025 (without further notice or certified copy) and file reply and all documents within further time allowed by that authority; opportunity forfeited on failure to appear or show accepted cause; all questions except limitation left open. The prayers to condone the 78-day delay before the second respondent and to refund the excess over the 10% pre-deposit are not addressed in the operative order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's appeal under Section 73(9) of the Act, belated by 78 days, should be entertained (delay condoned) in view of the proprietor's hospitalization during March 2025. +2 more

Ratio / Principle

This Court entertains writ petitions in similar circumstances where bona fides are established, restoring the original proceedings; accordingly, in the present case, this Court must interfere restoring the original proceedings for readjudication, but on terms, observing that the petitioner must forfeit the opportunity if it does not avail it on the terms provided.

Key takeaways

The petition is allowed in part, and the third respondent's Order-in-Original dated 26.11.2024 [Annexure-D] is quashed, restoring the proceedings for reconsideration.ratio¶44
The petitioner's representative, with no further notice and without waiting for a certified copy of the order, shall appear before the third respondent on 04.07.2025 and file reply and all documents within such further time as allowed by the third respondent.ratio¶46
If for any reason the petitioner does not appear on 04.07.2025 before the third respondent, and the third respondent is not persuaded to accept the cause shown, the petitioner shall forfeit the opportunity.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Indirect Taxation (GST) - Appeal under Section 73(9) of the Karnataka/Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 filed belatedly by 78 days against Order-in-Original dated 26.11.2024 [Annexure-D] - Endorsement dated 27.05.2025 [Annexure-J] of the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax Appeals refusing to entertain the appeal on the ground of delay - Petitioner attributed the delay to hospitalization of its proprietor during March 2025 - Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 allowed in part: Order-in-Original quashed and original proceedings restored for reconsideration - Petitioner's representative directed to appear before the assessing authority on 04.07.2025 and file reply and all documents, failing which the opportunity stands forfeited - All questions except the question of limitation left open for due consideration.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19171 WP No. 16018 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 16018 OF 2025 (T-RES)

BETWEEN:

M/S INTER GLOBE TRADING A PROPRIETARY CONCERN OFF/AT 5-5-279/60, THE EMPIRE, 1^ST FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA-575 003, GSTIN-29ECHPM7024MIZI REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR. MR. MOHAMMAD HASANABBA MADANTHYAR.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. HEMANTH N.P.,ADVOCATE A/W

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka

SRI. VIJYA KUMAR A, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX VANIJYA THERIGE BHAVANA KALIDASA MARGA GANDHINAGARA BANGALORE-560009.

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX APPEALS VANIJYA THERIGE BHAVANA,

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19171 WP No. 16018 of 2025

HC-KAR

MAIDAN ROAD,

MANGALORE-575 001.

THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (AUDIT)-5, D.G.S.T.O., VANIJYA THERIGE BHAVANA, MAIDAN ROAD, MANGALORE-575 001.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.HEMA KUMAR., AGA A/W SMT. JYOTHI M.M., HCGP )

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT THE R- TO CONDONE A DELAY OF 78 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL VIDE ANNX-G BEFORE THE SAID AUTHORITY, THEREBY TO HEAR THE APPEAL ON MERITS AND TO DISPOSE OF THE SAID APPEAL EXPEDITIOUSLY; DIRECT THE R-3 TO REFUND THE EXCESS AMOUNT RECOVERED OVER AND ABOVE 10 PERCENT (PRE-DEPOSIT) OF THE IMPUGNED TAX DEMAND PURSUANT TO ANNX-D AND D1 DATED 26.11.2025.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19171 WP No. 16018 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner inter alia is aggrieved by the second respondent's Endorsement dated 27.05.2025 [Annexure-J] , and the second respondent has issued this Endorsement informing the petitioner that its appeal under Section 73[9] of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short, 'the Act' ] as against the Order-in-Original is belated by 78 days and therefore cannot be entertained. The petitioner’s proprietor does not contest that the appeal is belated, but he asserts that he was hospitalized during the month of March 2025, and as such, he could not file an appeal.

In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner asserts bona fide to bolster the petitioner’s case that he could not participate in the original proceedings under Section 73 of the Act because of health reasons. Mr. K Hemakumar, the learned Additional

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:19171 WP No. 16018 of 2025

HC-KAR

Government Advocate, who is supported by Ms. Jyoti M M, the learned High Court Government Pleader, on behalf of the respondents, are heard in the light of the petition's specific case that he, for bonafide reasons, could not participate in the original proceedings or avail the appellate remedy because of his hospitalization.

Sri K Hemakumar cannot dispute that this Court has entertained writ petition in similar circumstances, when bona fides are established, restoring the original proceedings. In fact, when queried, Sri K Hemakumar submits that interference has been because there would be no merger with the Order-in-original as the appeal is not considered on merits. In the afore circumstances, this Court must interfere restoring the original proceedings for readjudication but on terms observing that the petitioner must forfeit the opportunity if it does not avail this opportunity on the terms that are provided

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19171 WP No. 16018 of 2025

HC-KAR

as this Court is taking a liberal view in the

circumstances. In the light of the afore, the following:

ORDER

[a] The petition is allowed in part, and the third respondent's Order-in-Original dated 26.11.2024 [Annexure-D] is quashed restoring the proceedings for reconsideration stipulating that the

petitioner’s representative, with no further notice or waiting for a certified copy of this

order, shall appear before the third respondent on 04.07.2025 and file reply and all documents within such further time as allowed by the third respondent.

[c] If for any reason, the petitioner does not appear on 04.07.2025 before the third respondent, and the third respondent is not persuaded to accept the cause that may be shown, the petitioner shall forfeit the opportunity.

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19171 WP No. 16018 of 2025

HC-KAR

[d] It is needless to observe that all questions

[ excluding the question of limitation ] are left

open for due consideration.

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

AN/-