2022 (11) TMI 322 - HC - GST

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - sufficient cause for delay present or not - HELD THAT - The facts and circumstances clearly establish that the petitioner had made out valid and sufficient ground/cause to condone the delay in preferring the appeal before the appellate Authority. It is also clear that the inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to prefer the appeal within the prescribed period was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause. Though it is well settled that Respondent No.1-Appellate Authority does not have power to condone the delay beyond the extended/condonable period of 30 days after expiry of the initial period of 60 days, by adopting justice oriented approach and in order to do complete and substantial justice, in the peculiar/special facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case and in the light of the material on record which clearly establishes that the delay in preferring the appeal was wholly unintentional and due to valid and sufficient grounds referred to supra coupled with the fact that the petitioner has a good case to urge on merits and the balance of convenience in its favour. It is deemed just and appropriate to exercise the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and condone the delay in preferring the appeal by the petitioner by setting aside the impugned order at Annexure-A and remit the matter back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration of the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law. Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in preferring an appeal before the Appellate Authority.
2. Exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Validity of reasons for delay in preferring the appeal.
4. Comparison of judgments in similar cases for condonation of delay.
5. Discretion of the Court to condone delay based on circumstances.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought the quashing of an impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority, confirming an order passed earlier. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation due to delay in filing. The petitioner contended that the delay was due to bonafide reasons and unavoidable circumstances. The Court noted the inability of the Appellate Authority to condone the delay beyond a certain period but exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to condone the delay in this case.

2. The petitioner argued that the Appellate Authority lacked the power to condone the delay, but the Court could do so under Article 226 to ensure complete justice. The petitioner relied on a judgment by a Division Bench to support this argument. The respondents, on the other hand, claimed lack of due diligence on the petitioner's part for the delay in filing the appeal. They cited a different judgment by a Division Bench to support their contention.

3. The petitioner explained that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the order not being received promptly by the concerned officer, who was handling multiple GST compliances across various states. The petitioner learned about the order much later when asked for clarification by the Revenue. The Court found the reasons provided by the petitioner valid and sufficient to condone the delay, emphasizing the unintentional nature of the delay and the petitioner's readiness to present a strong case on merits.

4. The Court distinguished the facts of the present case from a previous judgment where delay condonation was denied. It highlighted the unique circumstances of this case, justifying the exercise of discretion to condone the delay. The Court set aside the impugned order, remitting the matter back to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration without the limitation issue.

5. In the final order, the Court allowed the writ petition, subject to a deposit to the Advocates Welfare Fund. It quashed the impugned order, condoned the delay in filing the appeal, and directed the Appellate Authority to reconsider the appeal on its merits. The Court clarified that its decision was based on the specific facts of the case and should not be considered a precedent.