Appellate authority must consider explanations for delay in GST appeals under Section 107 before mechanical rejection

Calcutta HC set aside appellate authority's rejection of GST appeal filed under Section 107 of West Bengal/Central GST Act, 2017. Petitioner filed appeal six months and twelve days late, claiming inability to view SCN on portal prevented timely filing. Appellate authority mechanically rejected without considering petitioner's explanation for delay. HC found order perverse, noting appellate authority failed to consider petitioner's lack of knowledge about the order. Relying on precedent, HC held appellate authority competent to condone delay beyond prescribed one-month period. Matter remanded with direction to hear appeal on merits within eight weeks after condoning delay.

---

---

Issues involved: Challenge to rejection of appeal under Section 107 of the West Bengal/Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 based on delay in filing, lack of knowledge regarding show cause notice and order, violation of principles of natural justice, rejection of application for condonation of delay, competence of appellate authority to condone delay.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to Rejection of Appeal: The petitioner challenged the rejection of the appeal under Section 107 of the said Act, citing a delay of 73 days in filing the appeal due to lack of knowledge regarding the show cause notice and order. The petitioner contended that the appellate authority did not consider the reasons for the delay provided in the appeal application, leading to a mechanical rejection.

2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The petitioner argued that the show cause notice and order were not available for viewing in the appropriate section of the portal, preventing a timely response. Citing a judgment from the Delhi High Court, the petitioner claimed that such lack of knowledge constitutes a violation of principles of natural justice, as seen in a similar case.

3. Rejection of Application for Condonation of Delay: The appellate authority rejected the petitioner's application for condonation of delay without considering the reasons for the delay adequately. The petitioner's counsel highlighted that lack of knowledge regarding the order and the petitioner's ill health during the relevant period were valid reasons for the delay.

4. Competence of Appellate Authority: The High Court noted that the appellate authority is competent to hear an appeal by condoning the delay beyond one month from the prescribed period under Section 107 (4) of the said Act. The Court found that the appellate authority had not appropriately considered the petitioner's reasons for the delay, leading to the rejection of the appeal.

5. Judgment and Directions: The High Court set aside the order of the appellate authority dated 27th February, 2024, and directed the appellate authority to hear and dispose of the appeal on merit after condoning the delay. The Court emphasized giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of the order, ensuring the principles of natural justice are upheld.

6. Disposition: The writ petition was disposed of with the above observations and directions. The Court deemed the allegations in the writ petition not admitted by the respondents due to the absence of an affidavit-in-opposition. The High Court directed the provision of a certified copy of the order to the parties upon compliance with formalities if applied for, concluding the judgment.

---