2024 (9) TMI 1214 - HC - GST

Limitation and pre-deposit requirements in appellate tax proceedings: court set aside dismissal where bona fide pre-deposit existed

Appeal dismissed as time-barred was set aside where the appellate authority failed to consider the explanation for delay and ignored a bona fide ... Rejection of appeal on the ground of time limitation - HELD THAT:- Admittedly in this case, it may be noted that the determination has been made under Section 73 of the said Act - Such appeal had been filed beyond the time prescribed though there appears to be some explanation for the delay in filing the appeal. The Appellate Authority, however, without considering such explanation had decided to dismiss the said appeal, inter alia, on the ground that the appeal is barred by limitation and the petitioner having not made the deposit of twelve and half per cent in terms of the notification dated 2nd November, 2023 is not entitled to the benefit of such notification. It appears that the petitioner has already made a pre-deposit of ten per cent of the amount of the tax in dispute. As such, it cannot be said that there was any lack of bona fide on the part of the petitioner in preferring the appeal. The petitioner certainly does not stand to gain by filing a belated appeal. The order passed by the Appellate Authority on 18th March, 2024 cannot be sustained. The same is accordingly set aside - Petition disposed off. Issues:Challenging the order passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 for the tax period 2017-18 due to delay in filing the appeal and rejection by the Appellate Authority based on limitation without considering the application for condonation of delay.Analysis:The petitioner challenged an order under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, dated 14th March, 2023, by filing an appeal beyond the limitation period. The appeal was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay, highlighting the petitioner's age-related ailments preventing timely filing. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal solely on the grounds of being time-barred, without considering the condonation application. The petitioner argued that the failure to consider the application deprived them of the right to challenge the order on merits. The petitioner's advocate contended that the appeal should be remanded for a decision on merits, emphasizing the petitioner's senior citizen status and health issues as justifications for the delay.The respondents, represented by their advocate, opposed the condonation of delay, asserting that the initial order under Section 73 was valid and adequately determined. They highlighted that despite being entitled to file the appeal by paying a specified amount, the petitioner failed to do so. The medical prescription provided by the petitioner was deemed insufficient to justify the delay, as it only recommended rest and did not preclude filing the appeal within the prescribed period. The court considered the arguments from both sides and reviewed the materials on record, noting that the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed time but had a reasonable explanation for the delay.The court found that the Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the condonation application. Considering the petitioner's senior citizen status, health issues, and the pre-deposit made, the court held that there was no lack of bona fide on the petitioner's part. Referring to relevant judgments, the court concluded that the Appellate Authority should have considered the condonation application. Consequently, the order of the Appellate Authority was set aside, and the appeal was directed to be heard and disposed of within eight weeks, subject to the petitioner paying a specified cost to the State Legal Services Authority. The court disposed of the writ petition with these directions, instructing all parties to act based on the official order copy from the Court's website.