- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010790072025 NC: 2026:KHC:47909-DB STRP No. 65 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO. 65 OF 2025 BETWEEN: M/S SUPERB STEEL SALES 1ST FLOOR, KAREEM MANZIL 20/1, B.OSMAN KHAN ROAD NAAZ COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560 002 REPRESENTED BY PROPRIERTRIX SMT. MANJU A. TALREJA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS REP. BY ITS PROPRIETRIX. …PETITIONER (BY SRI K. GOVINDARAYA KAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMRCIAL TAXES APPEALS-3, 2ND FLOOR BMTC BUS STAND, SHANTINAGARA BENGALURU – 560 027. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES AUDIT 3.2, DVO-3 SHANTINAGARA BENGALURU – 560 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ADITYA VIKRAM BHAT, AGA) Digitally signed by G SHREERAKSHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010790072025 NC: 2026:KHC:47909-DB STRP No. 65 of 2025 THIS STRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.65(1) OF THE KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2023 PASSED IN STA.NO.154/2022 ON THE FILE OF KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE ORDER DATED 12.09.2022 PASSED IN VAT.AP.NO.83/2018-19 ON THE FILE OF JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS)-3 SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE REASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22.03.2018 PASSED U/S 39(1) OF THE ACT, BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, (AUDIT)3.2 BENGALURU, FOR THE TAX PERIOD 2011- 12. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS and HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS) This STRP has been filed under Section 65 (1) of the Karnataka Value Added Act 2003, while seeking condonation of delay of 483 days in terms of I.A. No.1/2026. Objections have been filed by the respondents. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on IA No.1/2026. In the affidavit filed along with the application seeking condonation of delay, it is stated - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010790072025 NC: 2026:KHC:47909-DB STRP No. 65 of 2025 that the petitioner is a woman entrepreneur and a senior citizen aged about 70 years. Her husband is also aged about 70 years and they are suffering from serious and persistent health issues. Eventually, the petitioner underwent a surgery in July 2024. Therefore, in view of the continued medical treatment and going through post surgical complications, the petition is filed after delay of 483 days. It is also stated in the affidavit that the husband of the petitioner also underwent a surgery for fracture in May 2025 and due to such unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner was not able to file the petition within time. 3. On the other hand, learned AGA submits that the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein on 21.12.2023 and certified copy was received by the petitioner on 09.02.2024. The learned AGA has given a list of dates and events and submits that the petitioner's husband was admitted to the hospital on 01.07.2024 and after the surgery was completed, he was discharged on 06.07.2024. The period - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010790072025 NC: 2026:KHC:47909-DB STRP No. 65 of 2025 of 180 days within which the petition was required to be filed expired on 07.08.2024. The petitioner was admitted to the hospital for treatment on 13.05.2025 and she was discharged on 15.05.2025. Therefore, the learned AGA submits that the explanation sought to be offered does not in any way fulfill the requirement of law of explaining the delay by each and everyday. Even if a lenient view is taken, it would not be possible to condone the delay having regard to the facts stated in the objections. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA on I.A.No.1/2026 for condonation of delay, we are of the considered opinion that the delay sought to be explained by the petitioner is not satisfactory. As rightly submitted by the learned AGA, the period of limitation prescribed is 180 days which is quite sufficient for preferring this petition raising a challenge to the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Moreover, the impugned order is passed in an appeal filed by the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner should have been - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010790072025 NC: 2026:KHC:47909-DB STRP No. 65 of 2025 more prudent and alert in pursuing the remedy within the time prescribed. We are also of the considered opinion that the huge delay of 483 days not including the 180 days prescribed in the statute, will make the appeal delayed by more than two years. That being the position, we are unable to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, we proceed to reject I.A.No.1/2026 and thereby dismiss the petition. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9