9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (10) TMI 118 - HC - GSTSeeking quashing of the impugned order of adjudication - appeal dismissed on the ground of time limitation - HELD THAT - The judgment of this Court in R.S. MARKETING AND LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER BENGALURU 2024 (6) TMI 889 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , is directly and squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case and the present petition deserves to be disposed of by setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to respondent No. 1 for reconsideration of the matter afresh, in accordance with law. In so far as the dismissal of the appeal before respondent No. 2 - Appellate Authority, it is well settled that if an appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay as barred by limitation, is not an appeal in the eye of law and there would not be any merger of the original order into the order of the Appellate Authority so as to prevent this Court from exercising its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Merely because respondent No. 2-Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground of limitation, since there is no adjudication on merits and the appeal has been summarily dismissed only on the ground of limitation, the said order of dismissal of the appeal on 23.04.2024 as barred by limitation cannot come in the way of this Court exercising its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and as such, this contention of the respondent cannot be accepted. The impugned order at Annexure-A dated 30.08.2023 passed by respondent No. 1 is hereby set aside - matter is remitted back to respondent No. 1 for reconsideration of the matter afresh - Writ Petition is hereby allowed.
Issues:
Challenging impugned order of adjudication dated 30.08.2024 and seeking other reliefs; Discrepancies between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A; Appeal dismissed on grounds of limitation; Applicability of Circular dated 27.12.2022; Jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Analysis: The petitioner sought to challenge the impugned order of adjudication dated 30.08.2024 and other reliefs. The respondent issued a show-cause notice on 13.07.2023, followed by the petitioner's reply and a subsequent endorsement dated 22.08.2023. The impugned order was passed on 30.08.2023, leading to the petitioner filing an appeal under Section 107 of the K.G.S.T Act, which was dismissed on grounds of limitation by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner contended that discrepancies between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A were due to bona fide reasons, citing a Circular dated 27.12.2022. The petitioner argued that the appeal dismissal did not consider the Circular, and hence, the impugned order should be set aside and the matter reconsidered. The petitioner relied on a previous court decision for support. In contrast, the learned AGA for the respondents argued that the writ petition lacked merit and should be dismissed. The judgment highlighted a similar case, R.S. Marketing and Logistics Private Limited, where a co-ordinate Bench set aside an adjudication order due to discrepancies between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, referencing the Circular dated 27.12.2022. The Court found the Circular applicable to the case, setting aside the adjudication order and remitting the matter for fresh consideration, granting the petitioner another opportunity to participate. The judgment emphasized the importance of following the Circular's procedure and giving a fair chance to the petitioner to present their case. Regarding the dismissal of the appeal on grounds of limitation, the Court clarified that such dismissal does not prevent it from exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The Court held that the dismissal on limitation grounds did not involve an adjudication on merits, allowing it to review the impugned order. The Court stressed that the present order's peculiar circumstances should not be considered a precedent for other cases. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, remitted the matter for fresh consideration, and reserved liberty for the petitioner to submit pleadings and documents.
|
