Statutory Flexibility: GST Appeal Reinstated Despite Minor Filing Delay, Notification 02.11.2023 Interpretation Upheld

The HC allowed the appeal challenging the rejection of a GST appeal due to minor delay. The court referenced a Patna HC Division Bench ruling interpreting a 02.11.2023 notification, which suggested flexibility in filing appeals beyond the 31.03.2023 cutoff date. The HC quashed the original order and directed the 1st Appellate Authority to reconsider the appeal in accordance with the notification's conditions.

---

---

Issues involved:
Challenge to rejection of appeal due to delay in submission and applicability of a notification dated 02.11.2023.

Challenge to rejection of appeal:
The petitioner approached the court challenging the order in Form GST-APL-02 dated 28.12.2023, contending that the rejection was based on a minor delay of two days in filing the appeal. The petitioner argued that a notification dated 02.11.2023, which restricts the scheme to cases where orders were passed prior to 31.03.2023, prevented them from availing the benefit. Reference was made to a similar matter considered by the High Court of Judicature at Patna, where the Division Bench interpreted the same notification and opined that the petitioner could also be allowed to comply with its conditions. The Division Bench questioned the rationale behind the cutoff date of 31.03.2023, suggesting that orders passed at least three months before the notification date should be considered for the special procedure outlined in the notification.

Applicability of notification dated 02.11.2023:
The notification issued by the Ministry of Finance on 02.11.2023, under section 148 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, provided a special procedure for filing appeals in cases where the appeal was not filed within the specified time period. It outlined conditions for filing appeals, including payment requirements and restrictions on refunds. The Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna observed that the petitioner could be allowed to comply with the conditions of this notification, leading to the setting aside of the order passed by the 1st Appellate Authority and a fresh consideration by the Appellate Authority in accordance with the law.

Conclusion:
The High Court did not diverge from the interpretation given by the Division Bench in the Patna High Court case. Consequently, the order of the 1st Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal on the grounds of limitation was deemed unsustainable in the eyes of the law. The court quashed the order and remitted the matter back to the 1st Appellate Authority for reconsideration in compliance with the law. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations and directions.

---