2024 (6) TMI 666 - HC - GST

Appeal Restored After Delay: Court Overrules Time-Barred Rejection Under West Bengal GST Act, 2017.

The HC set aside the rejection of an appeal under Section 107 of the West Bengal GST Act, 2017, due to a 55-day filing delay. The Appellate Authority had ... Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - power of appellate authority to condone delay beyond statutory one-month period - rejection of appeal as barred by limitation - exercise of jurisdiction by appellate authority - restoration of appeal for adjudication on meritsPower of appellate authority to condone delay beyond statutory one-month period - condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - exercise of jurisdiction by appellate authority - Appellate Authority was obliged to consider the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and could not refuse to entertain such application solely on the ground that it lacked power to condone delay beyond one month from the prescribed period. - HELD THAT: - The Court found that although the appeal was filed beyond the one-month period and was therefore prima facie barred by limitation, that fact did not preclude the petitioner from seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Appellate Authority erred by rejecting the appeal solely on the basis of the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 107 and by holding it had no power to allow the appeal beyond one month. The Division Bench decision in S. K. Chakraborty & Sons v. Union of India (2023 SCC Online Calcutta 4759) was referenced as having conclusively decided the competence issue in favour of allowing consideration of condonation applications. In these circumstances the Appellate Authority should have taken note of and adjudicated the explanation offered for the delay instead of returning the appeal as beyond its competence to condone the delay. [Paras 8, 9]The Appellate Authority should have considered the petitioner's application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and erred in declining to do so solely on the ground of lack of power to condone delay beyond one month.Rejection of appeal as barred by limitation - restoration of appeal for adjudication on merits - The impugned order rejecting the appeal was set aside and the appeal was restored to file for hearing on merits. - HELD THAT: - Having concluded that the explanation for delay warranted consideration and that remanding the matter to decide condonation would not serve a fruitful purpose, the Court held that the petitioner had sufficiently explained the delay. The order dated 28th March, 2024 (Form GST APL 02) rejecting the appeal was set aside. The appeal was restored to its original file and number and the Appellate Authority was directed to hear the appeal on merits in accordance with law within two months from communication of the order. [Paras 10]Order rejecting the appeal is set aside; the appeal is restored and directed to be heard on merits within two months.Final Conclusion: Writ petition allowed to the extent of setting aside the order rejecting the appeal; the appeal is restored to file and the Appellate Authority directed to hear it on merits in accordance with law within two months. Issues:Challenging rejection of appeal under Section 107 of West Bengal Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 based on delay in filing.Analysis:The petitioner filed a writ petition questioning the rejection of the appeal under Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The appeal was filed beyond the prescribed time and accompanied by an application for condonation of delay due to a 55-day delay. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal solely based on being filed beyond one month of the prescribed period, citing lack of power to condone the delay. The petitioner argued for the right to prefer an appeal and seek condonation of delay. The respondents opposed, stating no irregularity in refusing to condone delay beyond the specified period.The Court considered the matter and noted that while the appeal was time-barred, the petitioner could still seek condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Referring to a previous judgment, the Court held that the Appellate Authority should have considered the explanation for delay provided in the application. The Court set aside the rejection of the appeal, finding the petitioner sufficiently explained the delay. The appeal was restored, directing the Appellate Authority to hear it on merit within two months.The Court disposed of the writ petition, stating that since no affidavit-in-opposition was filed, the allegations in the petition were not deemed admitted by the respondents. The Court directed the provision of a certified copy of the order to the parties upon compliance with formalities.