Taxpayer's Genuine Technical Ignorance Prevails: GST Appeal Reinstated Despite Limitation Period Lapse, Ensuring Fair Hearing

HC allowed the writ petition challenging the rejection of a GST appeal on limitation grounds. The Court found the petitioner's delay was due to genuine lack of technical knowledge, not mala fide intent. HC directed the appellate authority to hear the appeal on merits within 8 weeks, condoning the delay and emphasizing procedural fairness for small businesses.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of appeal on the ground of limitation.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of their appeal by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Central/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, on the basis of being time-barred. The petitioner had appealed against an order passed under Section 73 (9) of the said Act for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018. Despite making the necessary pre-deposit required for maintaining the appeal, there was a delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner submitted an application explaining the delay, citing lack of proper knowledge of the GST portal as the reason. The appellate authority rejected the appeal solely on the ground of limitation, stating that the delay could only be condoned if the appeal was filed within one month beyond the prescribed time. The petitioner argued that the rejection was unjustified and sought condonation of the delay.

The Court considered the facts, noting that the petitioner had acted in good faith and had made a pre-deposit along with the appeal. The petitioner, being a small businessman, had explained the delay due to lack of knowledge about the GST portal. The Court opined that there was no lack of bona fide on the part of the petitioner in filing the appeal belatedly. The Court also highlighted that one does not stand to gain by filing a delayed appeal. The Court found that the appellate authority had failed to appropriately consider the application for condonation of delay, especially in light of the petitioner's explanation and lack of mala fide intent.

The Court referenced a previous judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Court, which contradicted the stance taken by the appellate authority regarding the condonation of delay. The Court held that the appellate authority had not exercised its jurisdiction properly and proceeded to set aside the order rejecting the appeal. Consequently, the Court granted the petitioner's request for condonation of delay and directed the appellate authority to hear and dispose of the appeal on merit within 8 weeks from the date of communication of the order. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, and all parties were instructed to act based on the server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of the Court.

---