2025 (2) TMI 996 - HC - GST

Challenge to Appellate Order passed u/s 107 of the 2017 Act - whether the first respondent-Appellate Authority has exercised its discretionary power under sub-Section(4) of Section 107 of 2017 Act judiciously? - HELD THAT - A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the first respondent-Appellate Authority failed to exercise its discretionary power under sub-Section (4) of Section 107 of 2017 Act judiciously. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Managing Director of the petitioner was on travel during the said period. Hence there was delay of 3 days which was within condonable period. The Appellate Authority failed to consider the reason or cause shown for condoning the delay of 3 days. The appellate authority failed to examine as to delay was within condonable period under Section 107(4) of 2017 Act and whether appellant has shown sufficient cause to condone delay of three days. Thus sufficient cause is shown by the petitioner to condone the delay of 3 days in preferring the appeal which is within condonable period prescribed under sub-Section (4) of Section 107 of 2017 Act. Conclusion - Delay of 3 days in preferring the appeal before the first respondent/Appellate Authority under Section 107 of 2017 Act is condoned. Petition allowed.

Summary

The Karnataka High Court heard a case involving an appeal under Section 107 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("2017 Act"). The petitioner challenged an Appellate Order passed under Section 107 of the 2017 Act. The petitioner had filed an appeal against an order dated 26.02.2024 under Section 73(9) and (10) of the 2017 Act, which was communicated on 27.02.2024. The appeal was filed with a 3-day delay. The petitioner argued that the Appellate Authority failed to exercise its discretionary power properly by rejecting the appeal solely based on the delay without considering whether the delay was condonable. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that there was no proper explanation for the delay and supported the Appellate Authority's decision.The Court considered whether the Appellate Authority had judiciously exercised its discretionary power under sub-Section(4) of Section 107 of the 2017 Act. The Court noted that the petitioner had a 3-month period to file an appeal from the date of communication of the order but filed it on the 30th of May 2024, beyond the deadline. Section 107(4) of the 2017 Act allows the Appellate Authority to allow the appeal to be presented within a further period of one month if satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the initial period. The Court found that the Appellate Authority had failed to consider the reason for the delay, which was within the condonable period of 30 days. The Managing Director of the petitioner was reportedly traveling during the period of delay, which constituted a sufficient cause for the delay. The Court held that the petitioner had shown sufficient cause to condone the 3-day delay and directed the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal on its merits.In conclusion, the Court allowed the writ petition, condoned the 3-day delay in filing the appeal, and directed the Appellate Authority to consider the petitioner's appeal against the order dated 26.02.2024 on its merits.