2025 (3) TMI 769 - HC - GST

Dismissal of appeal as time barred - HELD THAT - In the considered opinion of this Court the appellate authority in rejecting the application for condonation of delay and as a consequence rejecting the appeal vide impugned order dated 30/05/2024 on the ground of delay does not seem to be proper legal and justified. The appellate authority ought to have given a fair consideration to the contentions of the petitioner and ought to have got it verified whether the order was duly served either physically or electronically to the petitioner and only then should have taken a decision. In the absence of any such exercise and deciding the application for condonation of delay only on the basis of pleadings the impugned order in the considered opinion of this Court is not sustainable and deserves to be and is accordingly set aside. In consequence thereof delay if any in filing the appeal by the petitioner before the appellate Court is hereby condoned. The matter stands remitted back to the appellate authority i.e. respondent No. 1 to consider and decide the appeal filed by the petitioner on its own merits after due verification of the facts and also on due consideration of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in this petition - Petition disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

The Madhya Pradesh High Court addressed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 107 of the Central GST Act, 2017 and M.P. GST Act, 2017. The petitioner challenged an order dated 30/05/2024, dismissing their appeal as time-barred. The petitioner argued that the original order was neither uploaded on the GST Department's portal nor received via Speed Post, and was only discovered upon receiving a Demand notice on 10/01/2023. Subsequently, the petitioner obtained a copy of the order on 09/02/2023 and filed an appeal on 11/04/2023, asserting compliance with the three-month appeal period stipulated in Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017.The Court found that the appellate authority's rejection of the appeal on the grounds of delay was improper and unjustified. The authority failed to verify whether the order was duly served either physically or electronically. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order, condoned the delay in filing the appeal, and remitted the matter back to the appellate authority for reconsideration on its merits, with instructions to verify the facts and consider the petitioner's contentions. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations.