GST Cancellation must be Heard on Merits: Karnataka HC rules Limitation Not a Ground to Reject Appeal [Read Order]

The High Court of Karnataka has held that an appeal arising from the cancellation of Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) registration cannot be rejected solely on the ground of limitation. The bench set aside the appellate authority’s order observing that such matters must examined on merits and that such matters must be examined on their merits, the

The writ petition was filed by M/s. Shivashakti Traders who challenged the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals). The dispute arose from proceedings initiated under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, where the petitioner’s registration was cancelled.

The petitioner had attempted to file an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, but the appellate authority rejected the appeal on the ground that it was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. Aggrieved by the rejection without adjudication on merits, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the appellate order and a direction to restore and hear the appeal.

Appearing through H. R. Kambiyavar, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue in the present case is squarely covered by the Court’s decisions including Writ Petition No.107549/2024 disposed of on 21.01.2025, where the Court directed that delayed appeals should be considered on merits when cancellation of GST registration is involved.

Complete Supreme Court Judgment on GST from 2017 to 2024 with Free E-Book Access, Click here

The Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, presiding over the matter, observed that the dispute in the present petition is “covered on all fours” by earlier judgments of the Court. The Bench reproduced the operative portions of the previous rulings, particularly those in Writ Petition No. 108239 of 2025 and Writ Petition No. 101618 of 2025, where the High Court allowed delayed appeals to be restored and directed the appellate authorities to decide them on merits, without rejecting them on limitation.

Accordingly, the Court held that the appellate authority’s refusal to entertain the petitioner’s appeal was unsustainable. It accordingly set aside the impugned order and directed that the petitioner’s appeal be admitted and decided on merits. All other contentions were left open for consideration before the appellate authority.

Thus, the petition was disposed of on the same terms as the earlier connected writ petitions.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates