Judicial Review Validates Delay Condonation: Medical Evidence Overturns Mechanical Tax Authority Rejection of Appeal

HC allowed appeal challenging tax authority's mechanical rejection of delay condonation. Despite 13-day delay, medical documents substantiated petitioner's reasons. Court found appellate authority's order perverse and directed reconsideration of appeal on merits within 8 weeks, emphasizing proper application of mind when evaluating delay condonation applications under tax legislation.

---

---

Issues: Challenge to order under WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 for delay in filing appeal and condonation of delay application.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner had initially filed an appeal against an order dated 9th October 2023 under Section 73 (9) of the said Act, along with a separate application for condonation of delay due to medical reasons causing a delay of 13 days.

2. Despite submitting medical treatment documents to substantiate the delay, the appellate authority rejected the appeal, citing a delay of more than 4 months from the date of the original order. The petitioner argued that the appellate authority failed to consider the reasons for the delay adequately, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

3. The court noted that the appellate authority's decision appeared to be mechanical and contrary to established directives. The court emphasized that when an application for condonation of delay is filed, the authority must consider it. In this case, the appellate authority did not properly consider the medical reasons for the delay, leading to a decision based on a lack of proper application of mind.

4. The court found the appellate authority's order to be perverse and set it aside, acknowledging that the petitioner had provided sufficient explanation for the delay. The court directed the appellate authority to hear and dispose of the appeal on its merits within 8 weeks from the date of the court's order, ensuring the petitioner's right to a fair hearing.

5. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, and parties were directed to receive a certified copy of the order upon completion of necessary formalities.

---