2024 (8) TMI 1472 - HC - GST

Delayed Appeal Filing Deemed Valid Due to Improper Order Communication, Emphasizing Procedural Fairness and Substantial Justice

HC upheld the writ petition, ruling that the appeal filing deadline is directory, not mandatory. The court directed the appellant authority to consider ... Limitation is directory not mandatory - condonation of delay - limitation period commences from date of knowledge of order - appeal under the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017Limitation is directory not mandatory - condonation of delay - appeal under the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Whether the time-limit for filing an appeal under Section 35(1) read with Section 107 of the Haryana GST Act, 2017 is mandatory or directory and whether the Court may condone delay beyond the period expressly provided in the Act. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that the statutory time-limit for filing an appeal under the Act is essentially directory and not absolute; the existence of a prescribed period and a limited power to condone delay does not oust the Court's jurisdiction to condone delay in appropriate cases. Where a party is prevented by circumstances beyond its power or control from filing the appeal within the prescribed period, the Court may relax the time requirement and permit condonation of delay so that the appeal can be considered on merits. The Court relied on this principle to exercise its discretion in the present proceedings and rejected the contention that the Court is entirely barred from condoning delay merely because the Act specifies a period of condonation. [Paras 4]Statutory limitation under Section 35(1)/Section 107 is directory and the Court may condone delay where filing within time was prevented by factors beyond the party's control.Limitation period commences from date of knowledge of order - appeal under the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - From which date the limitation period prescribed under Section 35(1) of the Act runs where the impugned order was not communicated or uploaded and therefore unknown to the party. - HELD THAT: - The Court found that where the order creating demand was not conveyed to the petitioner and was not uploaded on the regular portal, the petitioner had no knowledge of the order. In such circumstances the prescribed limitation period must be read as commencing from the date on which the party acquires knowledge of the order, and not merely from the date the order was passed. Applying this principle, the Court accepted that the petitioner filed the appeal promptly upon learning of the order. [Paras 5]Limitation under Section 35(1) begins from the date of knowledge of the order if the order was not communicated or available to the party earlier.Condonation of delay - appeal under the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Whether the appellate authority should be directed to consider the petitioner's appeal on merits without going into delay/limitation. - HELD THAT: - In view of the conclusions that the limitation is directory and that the limitation period must be read from the date of knowledge where the order was not communicated, the Court exercised its remedial discretion to prevent prejudice to the petitioner. The writ petition was allowed and the Court directed the appellate authority to consider the appeal on merits, expressly prohibiting examination of the question of delay or limitation by that authority in the appeal proceedings. [Paras 6]Appellate authority directed to consider the petitioner's appeal on merits without going into delay or limitation.Final Conclusion: Writ petition allowed; appellate authority directed to decide the petitioner's appeal on merits (without addressing delay/limitation), the limitation being treated as directory and to run from date of knowledge where the order was not communicated. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition, directing the appellant authority to consider the appeal on merits without considering the delay. The court held that the provision for filing an appeal within a specific period is directory, not mandatory, especially when the order was not conveyed to the petitioner.