Disposed¶50

Sri v. S Paramesh v Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2026WP/4692/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 107 CGST/KGST Act, 2017 — computation of appeal deadline; time spent on a rejected rectification application treated as bona fide pursuit before a wrong forum and excluded; appeal filed 18.07.2024 held within four months of rectification rejection order dated 23.04.2024; appellate rejection order (Annexure-H, dated 16.07.2025, Appeal No. GST/AP410/2024-25) set aside, delay condoned, appeal ordered reheard on merits; Karnataka High Court writ petition (T-RES) disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Appellate order at Annexure-H set aside; delay in filing the appeal condoned; appeal to be taken on record and re-adjudicated on merits with all contentions kept open. ¶50

Sri v S Paramesh Vs Joint Commissioner of Commercial… — GST and Indirect Tax | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appellate order at Annexure-H set aside; delay in filing the appeal condoned; appeal to be taken on record and re-adjudicated on merits with all contentions kept open.

¶50

Issue for consideration

From which date the time-limit for filing the appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 is to be computed — the order-in-original dated 29.12.2023 or the order/endorsement rejecting the rectification application dated 23.04.2024. +1 more

¶36

Court's answer

Time spent in pursuing the rectification application, prosecuted under a bona fide belief before a wrong forum, is excluded in computing the four-month outer limit under Section 107; the appeal filed on 18.07.2024 therefore fell within four months of the order rejecting the rectification application dated 23.04.2024.

¶48

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's prosecution of the rectification proceedings under a bona fide wrong advice is accepted as an explanation, and the time so spent is taken note of as time spent under a bona fide belief before a wrong forum.

¶43

Key takeaways

The appellate order at Annexure-H is set aside, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is to be taken on record and re-adjudicated on its merits with all contentions kept open.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the appellate order dated 16.07.2025 (Annexure-H, Appeal No. GST/AP410/2024-25) by which the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) rejected, as time-barred, the petitioner's appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 against the adjudication order dated 29.12.2023 for tax period 2017-18. The petitioner had earlier sought rectification (filed 15.03.2024, rejected 23.04.2024). Holding that the time spent pursuing the rectification application under a bona fide belief before a wrong forum is to be excluded, the Court found the appeal filed on 18.07.2024 to fall within the four-month outer limit reckoned from the rectification rejection order dated 23.04.2024, set aside Annexure-H, condoned the delay, and directed that the appeal be taken on record and re-adjudicated on merits with all contentions kept open. Petition disposed of.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:14231 WP No. 4692 of 2026

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 4692 OF 2026 (T-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI V. S. PARAMESH, AGED 54 YEARS, SON OF SANNABOOTHA BHOVI, NO.1, VADDARAHATTI, ANNEGERE POST, PANCHANAHALLI, KADUR TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DIST - 577 548.

¶9

&PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NAVEEN G.S, ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS), MALNAD DIVISION, VANIJYA TERIGE BHAVANA, 12TH CROSS, A BLOCK, GOPALAGOWDA EXTENSION, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 205.

¶14

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT-1) VANIJYA TERIGE BHAVANA,

¶15

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:14231 WP No. 4692 of 2026

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

12TH CROSS, A BLOCK, GOPALAGOWDA EXTENSION, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 205.

¶19

&RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. K. HEMA KUMAR, AGA)

¶21

¶22

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.07.2025 PASSED BY RESPONDENT-1, UNDER SECTION 107 OF THE CGST/KGST ACT, 2017, FOR THE TAX PERIOD 2017-18, AND PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-H, BEARING NO.APPEAL NO.GST/AP410/2024-25 AS BEING ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, VIOLATIVE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND CONTRARY TO LAW AND ETC.,

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:14231 WP No. 4692 of 2026

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioner has sought for setting aside of the order at Annexure-H passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 for the tax period 2017-18. The petitioner has also sought for setting aside the order of adjudication at Annexure-C.

¶29

It is noticed at the outset that the order of adjudication was passed on 29.12.2023. A perusal of the said order would indicate that, though the petitioner has made out a reply, however, the authority has adjudicated the proceedings after noticing that the petitioner has not appeared on the subsequent dates nor replied to the show cause notice.

¶30

The petitioner then filed an application seeking rectification on 15.03.2024 at Annexure-D, which is rejected by way of an order dated 23.04.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an appeal, which came to be

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:14231 WP No. 4692 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

disposed of in terms of the order at Annexure-H on the sole ground that the appeal was filed beyond the period prescribed. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the matter and while observing that the delay could not be condoned, the appeal was rejected.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶36

the time for filing the appeal is to be calculated from the date of the endorsement/order rejecting the rectification application i.e. 23.04.2024 and if so calculated, the appeal filed could be stated to have been filed within time. Such aspect is not controverted by the respondents.

¶37

Learned Additional Government Advocate, however, submits that the period for filing the appeal would be calculated from the date of the order-in-original and not from the date of the endorsement/order rejecting the rectification application. It is further submitted that the petitioner has also failed to challenge the order rejecting the rectification request.

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:14231 WP No. 4692 of 2026

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

The order-in-original was passed on

¶41

29.12.2023. Admittedly, in terms of Section 107 of the CGST/KGST Act, the petitioner ought to have filed the appeal within an outer limit of four months, being three months extendable by a further period of one month. However, it must be noticed that the petitioner had filed an application for rectification, which came to be rejected as per the order/endorsement dated 23.04.2024.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶43

the substantive remedy which would be appropriate would be remedy of appeal and that, under a bona fide wrong advice, the petitioner prosecuted the rectification proceedings. Such explanation could be accepted and the time spent in pursuing the rectification application could be taken note of as time spent under a bona fide belief before a wrong forum.

¶44

Consequently, noticing that the appeal was filed on 18.07.2024, which is within a period of four months

¶45

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:14231 WP No. 4692 of 2026

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

from the date of the order rejecting the application for rectification, it would meet the ends of justice by directing that the appeal be reheard on its merits.

¶49

Accordingly, the order at Annexure-H is set aside. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The appeal to be taken on record and re-adjudicated, keeping open all contentions.

¶50

In light of the above, the petition is disposed

¶51

of .

¶52

SD/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

¶53

SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Sri v. S Paramesh v Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri v. S Paramesh v Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Nagashree K M Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Munirathnamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Narayanaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. B. M. Chandrashekar Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Rizmaq International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commercial Tax Officer

Primary Agricultural Credit Co. Operative Society Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)