Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 7931
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.NAGAPRASANNA, J
SHRI NAZIRAHAMMADKHAN S/O JIKARIAKHAN PATHAN – Appellant
Versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX GOODS AND SERVICES TAX – Respondent
WP 105933 of 2024
Delay in appeal under the GST Act may be condoned under certain circumstances as established by previous judgments.
Headnote:The petitioner seeks a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order cancelling GST registration dated 06/06/2022, stating that there is an alternate remedy via appeal under Section 29 of the GST Act. The petitioner seeks to withdraw the petition due to potential delay in appeal filing. The court resolves to allow the petitioner to approach the appellate authority without evaluating the merits of the claim. The appeal's appeal must follow the principles laid by previous judgments on delay condonation in GST matters.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. delay in appeal process can be condoned; counsel presents arguments. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 2. court grants liberty to file appeal without adjudicating merits. (Para 6 , 7) |
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following relief:
“i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 06/06/2022 passed by respondent No.1 canceling the GST registration of the petitioner (Annexure-A).
ii. Issue a direction to the respondent No.1 and 2 to restore the Petitioner’s GST registration (GSTIN/ UIN29AKDPP2961J1ZR) immediately;
and iii. Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. Heard Shri Vinayak Megundi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Shivaraj S.Balloli learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2; and Shri Venkatesh M.Kharvi, DSGI for respondent No.3.
3. In answer to the prayer quoted hereinabove, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy of filing an appeal against an order of cancellation of registration under section 29 of the GST act. He would submit that the petition should not be entertained and the petitioner should be relegated to avail of the aforesaid statutory remedy. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture would seek to withdraw the petition and prefer an appeal against the order impugned in the subject petition the difficulty that he projects is that the period of limitation would only lead to the dismissal of the appeal it is a submission that delay must be condoned.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that Section 29 cannot be interpreted to condone the delay of filing an appeal as mandated under Section 29 of the act. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon plethora of judgements of various high Courts where Section 29 has been interpreted and held that on sufficient reasons delay can be condoned therefore it is for the petitioner now to prefer an application in the appeal seeking condonation of delay giving sufficient cause for not preferring an appeal within the time limit prescribed under Section 29 of the GST act.
6. In that light, I deem it appropriate to dispose the subject petition resolving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellant authority under Section 29 of the GST act. The appellate authority shall bear in mind the observations made by various high Courts judgments of which are noted hereinabove and pass necessary orders in accordance with law.
7. It is made clear that this court has not entered into the merit of the claim of the petitioner.
Ordered accordingly
