2025 (3) TMI 888 - HC - GST

Condonation of delay in filing the appeal - providing opportunity to the petitioner to present his case - principle of natural justice - HELD THAT - Upon hearing it is seen that according to the petitioner the petitioner was not aware of the show cause notice issued through the GST Portal and the physical copy of the said show cause notice was not furnished to them. Therefore they were not aware about the issuance of show cause notice and the impugned order and therefore the delay of nearly 210 days has occurred. Thus this Court is of the view that the reason assigned by the petitioner for the delay in filing the appeal against the assessment order appears to be genuine. For filing the appeal the writ petitioner had already paid 10% of statutory pre-deposit. Since there occurred a huge delay this Court is inclined to direct the petitioner to pay 15% in addition to the 10% pre-deposit for condonation of delay. The delay of nearly 210 in filing the appeal against the impugned assessment order dated 22.04.2024 is hereby condoned - The Appellate Authority is directed to take the appeal on record without insisting upon the limitation aspect subject to the payment of 15% of the disputed tax demand in addition to 10% statutory pre-deposit i.e totally 25% of the disputed tax amount in respect of the impugned assessment. Petition disposed off.

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:

Whether the delay in filing the appeal against the assessment order by the petitioner can be condoned.
Whether the principle of natural justice was violated due to the method of communication used for the show cause notice and the impugned order.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The legal framework involves the statutory provisions governing the filing of appeals and the permissible period for condoning delays. Typically, the condonation of delay is at the discretion of the court, depending on the reasons provided for the delay.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court acknowledged the petitioner's argument that the delay was due to a lack of awareness of the show cause notice and the impugned order, which were only uploaded on the GST Portal without any physical notification. The Court found this reason to be genuine and thus considered it a valid ground for condonation.
Key evidence and findings: The petitioner had filed the necessary returns but was unaware of the subsequent notices due to their online-only publication. The petitioner had already made a 10% pre-deposit of the disputed tax amount, demonstrating intent to comply with procedural requirements.
Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principle that when a delay is not due to willful negligence, and the petitioner shows readiness to comply with procedural requirements, condonation can be granted. The Court decided to condone the delay, requiring an additional 15% deposit of the disputed tax amount.
Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents argued that the delay exceeded the permissible condonation period of 120 days. However, the Court prioritized the principle of natural justice and the genuine nature of the petitioner's claim over strict adherence to procedural timelines.
Conclusions: The Court concluded that the delay should be condoned, subject to the petitioner depositing an additional 15% of the disputed tax amount.

2. Violation of the Principle of Natural Justice

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The principle of natural justice requires that parties be given a fair opportunity to present their case, which includes proper notification of proceedings.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court recognized that the lack of physical notification of the show cause notice and order constituted a violation of natural justice principles, as it deprived the petitioner of the opportunity to respond timely.
Key evidence and findings: The show cause notice and the impugned order were only uploaded on the GST Portal, without any physical notice being provided to the petitioner.
Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principle that adequate notification is a fundamental component of natural justice. The failure to provide physical notice was deemed a procedural lapse that justified the condonation of delay.
Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents did not provide a counter-argument regarding the notification process, focusing instead on the procedural timeline. The Court found in favor of the petitioner on this issue.
Conclusions: The Court concluded that the principle of natural justice was violated, warranting the condonation of delay and allowing the petitioner to present their case on merits.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "Thus, this Court is of the view that the reason assigned by the petitioner for the delay in filing the appeal against the assessment order, appears to be genuine."
Core principles established: The judgment reinforces the principle that procedural fairness and the opportunity to be heard are paramount, even when procedural timelines are exceeded, provided the delay is justified.
Final determinations on each issue: The Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal, directed the petitioner to deposit an additional 15% of the disputed tax amount, and instructed the Appellate Authority to hear the appeal on merits, ensuring adherence to natural justice.