- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1248 WP No. 100561 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.100561 OF 2026 (T-RES) BETWEEN: SHRI. VISHAL DURGADAS JAIWANT PROP. M/S GRAFIK, PALLAVI ARCADE DEVIKERI ROAD, SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA-581401, GSTN: 29ADLPJ0341D1ZV. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.G.SOLARGOPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS), NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580025. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER LGSTO-370, SIRSI-581401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR QUASHING THE ORDER-IN-APPEAL BEARING NO. APL/GST-165/2025-26 DATED 27-06- 2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT-1 AND VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND QUASH THE ADJUDICATION ORDER BEARING NO. CTO/LGSTO-370/ SRS/ORDER-23/24-25-1125 AND REFERENCE NO. ZD2907240834705 DATED 25-07-2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT-2 AND VIDE ANNEXURE –B AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.03 10:49:02 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1248 WP No. 100561 of 2026 ORAL ORDER Learned Addl. Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents. 2. The petitioner challenging the order under Section 73 of the CGST and SGST Act, 2017 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer-respondent No.2, preferred an appeal before the appellate authority-respondent No.1 under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, which came to be dismissed as barred by limitation. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay in preferring the appeal was neither wilful nor deliberate. An affidavit explains for the reasons for delay was filed along with appeal. However, the appellate authority failed to consider the same. It is contended that the petitioner has claimed Input Tax Capital on basis of genuine tax invoice and was under bona fide believe that - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1248 WP No. 100561 of 2026 the discrepancy would be by rectified by the supplier, which resulted in the delay. 4. Learned counsel referring to the decision in Sri Kolapudi Enoch Washington Vs. The Additional Commissioner (GST and Central Tax) and others1 and M/s Nagson and Company Vs. The Joint Commissioner of Central Tax and others2 and also the benefit extended under Circular bearing No.183/15/2022- GST dated 27.12.2022, as considered in the case of M/s Wipro Limited India Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Taxes and Others3. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents-State submits that as limitation is concerned, Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 prescribe a mandatory and with a further condonable period of only 30 days and since the appeal was filed beyond the 12022 KHC 37970 22022 KHC 38176 3 W.P.No.16175 of 2022 dated 06.01.2023 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1248 WP No. 100561 of 2026 said period, the appellate authority was justified in dismissing the appeal as time barred. 6. Having given an anxious consideration to the submissions and the material on record, the reasons for delay, as set out by the petitioner while filing an appeal under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 at paragraph No.5, is as under: • I had claimed Input Tax Credit (ITC) based on a genuine tax invoice dated 06.02.2020 issued by M/s. Mahavir Soft Image (India) Ltd. • Subsequently, it came to my knowledge that the said supplier failed to upload the invoice in GSTR- 1, which led to a mismatch and consequent rejection of ITC. • I issued legal notice to the supplier on 25.11.2021, urging compliance, but received no response. • I was under the genuine and reasonable belief that the issue could be resolved at the supplier’s end and thus inadvertently delayed in filing the appeal. • Additionally, due to limited awareness procedural requirements, and absence of professional legal - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1248 WP No. 100561 of 2026 support at that time, I could not act within the prescribed time. 7. The above reasons disclose that the petitioner had acted under bona fide believe that the mismatch in the Input Tax Credit would be rectified by the supplier, that a legal notice was issued to the supplier, and that the delay was occasioned due to lack of professional assistance and limited awareness of procedural requirements. The explanation, in the present facts, cannot be said to be lacking bona fides. 8. No doubt Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 prescribes the period within an appeal to be filed. However, adopting a justice oriented approach, particularly when the justification offered is reasonable and when the matter deserves consideration on merits, in the peculiar facts and circumstance of this case the delay in preferring the appeal deserves to be condoned and the matter requires consideration on merits by the appellate authority having regard to the circler issued by the GST council, namely - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1248 WP No. 100561 of 2026 No.183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022 and Circular bearing No. No.193/05/2023-GST dated 17.07.2023. 9. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The order in appeal in 27.06.2025 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes-respondent No.1 is hereby set aside. iii. The appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 107 of the CGST Act 2017 shall be treated as filed within time. iv. Respondent No.1 shall consider the appeal on its merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, in terms of the Circular bearing No.183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022 and Circular bearing No. No.193/05/2023-GST dated 17.07.2023. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA EM Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17