2024 (4) TMI 854 - HC - GST

Power of condone the delay beyond four months - pre-deposit has been done after the period was over - HELD THAT - The period of four months has to be calculated in terms of the General Clauses Act. Once the appeal has been submitted on 30.09.2023 in the order passed on 30.05.2023 if calculated mathematically it would be less than four months. The petitioner has also given out other reasons for not filing the appeal within the period of three months. In the opinion of this Court the delay ought to have been condoned which was within the powers of the appellate authority upto one month. The matter remanded back to the appellate authority to decide the appeal more so as the amount of pre - deposit has already been deposited by the petitioner - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issue involved in the present case is the rejection of the application seeking condonation of delay by the appellate authority on the grounds of exceeding the limitation period of four months and failure to pre-deposit within the prescribed time frame.

Issue 1 - Condonation of Delay:
The petitioner challenged the order of assessment dated 30.05.2023 filed on 30.09.2023, contending that the appellate authority rejected their application for condonation of delay beyond the four-month limitation period. The petitioner argued that the appellate authority should have considered the reasonable grounds mentioned in the application seeking condonation. The Court observed that the period of four months should be calculated as per the General Clauses Act, and mathematically, the appeal submitted on 30.09.2023 within the order of 30.05.2023 was less than four months. The Court noted that the petitioner provided valid reasons for the delay in filing the appeal within three months. Consequently, the Court held that the delay should have been condoned by the appellate authority within the permissible one-month period.

Issue 2 - Pre-deposit Requirement:
The appellate authority also refused to entertain the appeal on the basis that the pre-deposit was made after the prescribed period had lapsed. However, the Court found that the amount of pre-deposit had already been submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, the Court allowed the petition and remanded the matter back to the appellate authority for reconsideration of the appeal, emphasizing that the pre-deposit requirement had been fulfilled by the petitioner.

In conclusion, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sudeepti Sharma, directed the parties to appear before the appellate authority with a copy of the Court's order. The petitioner was granted the option to seek interim protection through a separate application. All pending applications were disposed of by the Court.