MD Javed Vs Dy Commissioner — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

MD Javed Vs Dy Commissioner — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the impugned order dated 04.11.2024 (Annexure-A); condonation of the delay in filing the appeal; the appeal to be decided in accordance with law; with an express clarification that no opinion has been expressed on the merits of the claim.

Issue for consideration

Whether the dismissal of the petitioner's statutory appeal solely on the ground of delay — without condoning the delay or deciding the appeal on merits — was sustainable, and whether, as this Court has done in comparable matters, the delay ought to be condoned and the appeal directed to be decided in accordance with law.

Court's answer

In view of the above two judgments (of co-ordinate Benches of this Court, one rendered in a writ petition, on which the learned Additional Government Advocate raised no substantial objection) and the submissions made by the counsel, there are justifiable reasons to agree with the contentions put forth by the counsel for petitioner; the petitioner herein stands on the same footing.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 04.11.2024 (order number not recoverable) vide Annexure-A is hereby quashed.

Key takeaways

Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal shall be decided in accordance with law.ratio¶65
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim.ratio¶71

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka — indirect tax (Central Goods and Service Tax Act, as recited in the corrupted source text). The petitioner, a proprietor doing business in goods transport and an assessee under the Act who regularly filed returns and paid tax, was served with an intimation under a Form of the Act for a taxable period demanding tax, interest and penalty; on non-compliance, the respondent passed an order confirming the amount sought in the show cause notice. The petitioner's appeal against that order (passed by respondent No.2 in January 2024) was dismissed by the appellate authority solely on the ground of delay. Contending that in similar circumstances this Court had set aside such dismissals and condoned the delay — a course on which the learned Additional Government Advocate raised no substantial objection — and relying upon two judgments of co-ordinate Benches of this Court (one rendered in a writ petition, in which that Bench had itself relied upon a judgment of another High Court), the Court found justifiable reasons to agree with the petitioner's contentions and passed an operative order: (ii) the impugned order dated 04.11.2024 (Annexure-A) is quashed; (iii) the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal shall be decided in accordance with law; (iv) it is made clear that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim (recital (i) is illegible in the source). CAUTION: the source text is severely corrupted (broken font encoding); party names, counsel, coram, case number, statutory section numbers, the appeal number and the identities/citations of the relied-upon precedents are irrecoverable and have been left blank rather than guessed; decoded values (including 04.11.2024) should be verified against the original PDF before citation.