2024 (7) TMI 740 - HC - GST

Condonation of delay of 13 days in filing appeal - delay on the ground of medical grounds - HELD THAT - In this case it is noticed that despite there being an application for condonation of delay, the appellate authority by glossing over the same had purported to reject the appeal on the ground that the appeal was delayed by more than 4 months. From the order impugned it would appear that the appellate authority despite acknowledging the fact that the main reason for delay in filing the appeal was due to medical treatment and by placing reliance on the provisions of Section 107 (4) of the said Act, by observing the petitioner having filed the appeal beyond the time prescribed, had dismissed the same. It is elementary that when an application for condonation of delay is filed, the appellate authority is obliged to consider the same. Unfortunately, in this case the appellate authority, despite acknowledging the fact that the reason for delay was the medical treatment of the petitioner and by holding that the appeal had been filed beyond the time prescribed as provided for in Section 107 (4) of the said Act, had been pleased to reject the same - the aforesaid order is perverse to say the least and based on complete non application of mind. The same is accordingly set aside. The petitioner has been able to sufficiently explain the delay in filing the appeal. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to order under WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 for delay in filing appeal and condonation of delay application.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner had initially filed an appeal against an order dated 9th October 2023 under Section 73 (9) of the said Act, along with a separate application for condonation of delay due to medical reasons causing a delay of 13 days.

2. Despite submitting medical treatment documents to substantiate the delay, the appellate authority rejected the appeal, citing a delay of more than 4 months from the date of the original order. The petitioner argued that the appellate authority failed to consider the reasons for the delay adequately, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

3. The court noted that the appellate authority's decision appeared to be mechanical and contrary to established directives. The court emphasized that when an application for condonation of delay is filed, the authority must consider it. In this case, the appellate authority did not properly consider the medical reasons for the delay, leading to a decision based on a lack of proper application of mind.

4. The court found the appellate authority's order to be perverse and set it aside, acknowledging that the petitioner had provided sufficient explanation for the delay. The court directed the appellate authority to hear and dispose of the appeal on its merits within 8 weeks from the date of the court's order, ensuring the petitioner's right to a fair hearing.

5. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, and parties were directed to receive a certified copy of the order upon completion of necessary formalities.