2025 (2) TMI 1003 - HC - GST

Rejection of petitioner s appeal on the ground of delay - Reversal of the input tax credit availed by the petitioner - HELD THAT - This Court finds that the second respondent in rejecting the petitioner s appeal on the ground of delay applied the provisions of the GST Act strictly. However it is the opinion of this Court that the delay of 35 days in filing the appeal while significant could be condoned in the interests of justice considering the circumstances surrounding the delay and the actions already taken by the petitioner to discharge a substantial portion of the disputed tax liability. This Court is of the view that the appeal should not be dismissed merely due to a procedural delay especially when the petitioner has made an effort to comply with the statutory requirements including the pre- deposit of 10% of the tax liability and additional payments towards the disputed tax amount. Therefore this Court is inclined to provide the petitioner an opportunity to present the matter on its merits before the second respondent. The matter is remanded back to the second respondent for fresh consideration directing the second respondent to consider the appeal on its merits and in accordance with law taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case - Petition disposed off by way of remand.

The issues presented and considered in the judgment are as follows:1. Whether the delay of 35 days in filing the appeal by the petitioner can be condoned in the interests of justice?2. Whether the petitioner's efforts to comply with statutory requirements, including pre-deposit of tax liability and additional payments, warrant a fresh consideration of the appeal on its merits?Issue-wise detailed analysis:Issue 1:- Relevant legal framework and precedents: The case involves the interpretation of Section 107(4) and Section 107(6) of the GST Act, 2017, regarding the time limit for filing an appeal and the pre-deposit requirements.- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court acknowledged the strict statutory time limit for filing the appeal but considered the circumstances surrounding the delay and the actions taken by the petitioner in discharging a substantial portion of the disputed tax liability.- Key evidence and findings: The petitioner filed an appeal with a delay of 35 days and made a pre-deposit of 10% of the tax liability along with additional payments towards the disputed tax amount.- Application of law to facts: The Court balanced the procedural delay against the petitioner's efforts to comply with statutory requirements and decided to condone the delay in the interests of justice.- Conclusions: The Court held that the delay in filing the appeal should not lead to dismissal, especially when the petitioner had made significant efforts to meet statutory requirements. The Court decided to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to present the appeal on its merits.Issue 2:- Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court considered the principles of natural justice and the statutory provisions governing appeals under the GST Act, 2017.- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the petitioner had made a pre-deposit of 10% of the tax liability and additional payments but emphasized that these actions did not negate the fact that the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period.- Key evidence and findings: The petitioner had made efforts to comply with statutory requirements by making payments towards the tax liability.- Application of law to facts: The Court balanced the petitioner's compliance efforts against the procedural delay and decided to remand the matter back to the second respondent for fresh consideration on its merits.- Conclusions: The Court set aside the second respondent's order and directed a fresh consideration of the appeal, emphasizing that the appeal should be evaluated based on its merits and in accordance with the law.Significant holdings:The Court held that the delay in filing the appeal by the petitioner could be condoned in the interests of justice, and the matter was remanded back to the second respondent for fresh consideration on its merits and in accordance with the law.Core principles established:- Procedural delays may be condoned in the interests of justice, especially when the party has made efforts to comply with statutory requirements.- Appeals should be evaluated based on their merits and in accordance with the law, even if there have been procedural delays.Final determinations on each issue:The Court decided to set aside the second respondent's order, remand the matter for fresh consideration, and directed the second respondent to dispose of the appeal within two months from the date of receipt of the Court's order.Overall, the judgment focused on balancing procedural requirements with the interests of justice and ensuring that the petitioner had a fair opportunity to present their case on the merits.

← Previous Next →