2024 (7) TMI 245 - HC - GST

Condonation of delay of 10 days in filing appeal - sufficient reasons for delay or not - HELD THAT - From the annexures to Form GST APL-01 filed by the petitioner, it would appear that the petitioner had categorically stated in paragraph 17 thereof, not only the period of delay but the reasons for delay. From the above, it would appear that there is delay of 10 days in preferring the appeal. The petitioner had also explained the delay. Independent of the above, a further letter was also filed with the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax explaining the delay. The aforesaid explanation given by the petitioner has not been considered by the appellate authority. The appellate authority ought to have, in the given facts taken note of the explanation given by the petitioner praying for condonation of delay. The appellate authority having not considered the same and having mechanically rejected the said prayer, the order dated cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. Admittedly, the petitioner had made pre-deposit as required for maintaining the appeal under Section 107 of the said Act. Taking into consideration the aforesaid and the explanation given by the petitioner, the petitioner has been able to sufficiently explain the delay in filing the above appeal. The appeal is restored to its original file by condoning the delay.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging order under West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Condonation of delay in filing appeal before appellate authority.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition challenged the order passed by the appellate authority under the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner had received a show cause notice and subsequently an order was passed under Section 74 of the Act. The petitioner appealed under Section 107 of the Act and made a pre-deposit as required. The petitioner also sought condonation of a 10-day delay in filing the appeal, supported by an explanation for the delay.

2. The appellate authority rejected the appeal, citing the petitioner's failure to appear on the scheduled date despite praying for condonation of delay. The petitioner's advocate argued that the authority did not consider the grounds for condonation of delay adequately. The petitioner provided sufficient explanation for the delay, yet the appeal was rejected solely based on the delay.

3. The High Court found that the petitioner had indeed explained the delay adequately, and the appellate authority had not considered this explanation. Referring to a previous judgment, the Court emphasized the authority's power to condone delays beyond one month. Since the delay was only 10 days beyond the prescribed time and the petitioner had made the required pre-deposit, the Court concluded that the delay was sufficiently explained.

4. Consequently, the Court set aside the order rejecting the appeal, restored the appeal to its original file by condoning the delay, and directed the appellate authority to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits within eight weeks. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, and parties were directed to comply with necessary formalities for obtaining a certified copy of the order.