2024 (3) TMI 893 - HC - GST

Cancellation of GST registration - rejection of appeal filled u/s 107 - barred by limitation and beyond the condonable statutory period - Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ( APGST Act ) - HELD THAT - The impugned order in view of Section 107 of APGST Act does not suffer from any illegality, as the appellate authority cannot condone the delay beyond statutory condonable period but considering that there was sufficient cause for not preferring appeal in time, the interest of justice requires condonation of the delay and adjudication of the matter on merit by Appellate Authority. The appeal is a valuable statutory right. In exercise of the writ jurisdiction to do complete justice and provide opportunity of hearing on merits of the appeal, we condone the delay by imposing costs of Rs. 20,000/-. The appellate authority shall consider and decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law, expeditiously. The Writ Petition is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against rejection of GST registration cancellation, delay in filing appeal, condonation of delay.

Summary:

Issue 1: Appeal against rejection of GST registration cancellation
The petitioner's GST registration was cancelled, and the appeal under Section 107 of Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was rejected on the ground of being beyond the condonable statutory period.

Issue 2: Delay in filing appeal
The appeal was found to be beyond the condonable period by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner argued that the delay, after excluding the condonable period, was 69 days, not 73 days as stated in the impugned appellate order.

Issue 3: Condonation of delay
The petitioner cited ill health and difficulty in walking as reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. A Doctor's Certificate and the petitioner's affidavit were submitted as evidence. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal solely because the delay could not be condoned beyond the condonable statutory period.

The petitioner relied on a previous case where sufficient cause was shown to condone a delay in filing an appeal, leading to the matter being remitted to the appellate authority with a cost imposed. The Appellate Authority in the present case did not dispute the cause of delay or find it insufficient. The cause shown was considered sufficient by the Appellate Authority.

The Court held that while the appellate authority cannot condone the delay beyond the statutory condonable period, there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. In the interest of justice and to allow adjudication on merit, the delay was condoned by imposing costs. The appellate authority was directed to consider and decide the appeal on its merits promptly, and the costs were to be deposited within two weeks.

The Writ Petition was partly allowed in the mentioned terms, with no order as to costs. Any pending miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed accordingly.