2025 (6) TMI 1255 - HC - GST

GST appeal delay condonation refused after exceeding outer limit by 3 months 20 days under Section 107(4)

Calcutta HC dismissed a petition challenging refusal to condone delay in filing GST appeal. The appeal was filed 7 months 20 days late, exceeding the ... Refusal to condone the delay in filing the appeal - power of appellate authority to condone delay in filing an appeal - appeal dismissed on the ground of time limitation - HELD THAT:- The issue regarding the power of the appellate authority to condone the delay in filing appeal u/s 107 (4) of the WBGST Act is no longer res integra. The Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in S.K. Chakraborty & Sons. Vs. Union of India [2023 (12) TMI 290 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] has already upheld the power of the appellate authority to condone such delay subject to statutory limitations. Thus, the only question remains for consideration is whether the petitioner had shown sufficient grounds for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. The appeal in the present case was preferred 3 months and 20 days beyond the outer condonable limit, bring the total delay to 7 months and 20 days. The medical prescriptions submitted explain only a part of the delay and fail to justify why the appeal could not have been drafted and filed during the substantial period from February 2025 to April 2025. The petitioner is a partnership firm, even if one of the partners is indisposed, nothing prevented the other partner or authorized signatory from acting. Section 169 (1) (d) provides that any of the modes of service listed therein is sufficient service. Uploading the order on the portal fulfills the statutory mandate, supplementary intimation by SMS or E-mail is facilitative, not obligatory. In the absence of any cogent or comprehensive explanation that covers the entire period of delay, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 107 (4). Consequently, the refusal to condone the delay is perfectly in consonance with the statutory framework and the settled principles of fiscal discipline. Thus, no perversity or jurisdictional error is discernible in the impugned order, it warrants no interference under Section 226 of the Constitution - petition dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Court are:- Whether the appellate authority has the power to condone delay in filing an appeal under Section 107(4) of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax (WBGST) Act, 2017.- Whether the petitioner has demonstrated sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the assessment order dated 12.08.2024.- Whether the petitioner's claimed grounds, including non-availability of the order under the commonly accessed tab on the GST portal and medical emergencies of partners, constitute sufficient cause to justify the delay.- The legal effect of service of orders by uploading on the electronic GST portal and the necessity (or otherwise) of supplementary personal intimation such as SMS or email.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Power of Appellate Authority to Condoning Delay under Section 107(4) WBGST ActThe Court noted that the power of the appellate authority to condone delay in filing appeals is well settled and no longer res integra. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in a recent authoritative precedent upheld that the appellate authority may condone delay subject to statutory limitations and sufficient cause being shown. Section 107(4) of the WBGST Act empowers the appellate authority to allow appeals beyond the prescribed period if the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing within the stipulated time.Thus, the legal framework recognizes the discretionary power vested in the appellate authority to condone delay, but this power is not unfettered and is contingent upon the demonstration of sufficient cause.Issue 2: Sufficiency of Grounds for Condonation of DelayThe petitioner contended that the assessment order was not readily accessible under the commonly accessed tab on the GST portal but was uploaded under a different tab ('View Additional Notices and Orders'), resulting in lack of awareness of the order's existence. Further, no personal intimation by SMS or email was sent. Additionally, medical emergencies involving partners of the petitioner's firm were cited as reasons for the delay.The respondent refuted these claims, emphasizing that the order was uploaded on the portal on the date of passing and that the GST system automatically sends SMS and email alerts upon issuance of notices/orders. The respondent also highlighted that the medical documents pertained only to November 2024 and January 2025, which did not cover the entire period of delay extending up to April 2025.The appellate authority's detailed reasoning was examined, which found no logical connection between the medical issues and the delay in filing the appeal. The authority also held that uploading the order on the common portal constitutes deemed service under Section 169(1)(d) of the WBGST Act, 2017, and the petitioner failed to prove failure of the system regarding SMS/email intimation by not providing registered contact details for verification.The Court reiterated that under Rule 142(1A) read with Section 169 of the WBGST Act, electronic service by uploading on the designated portal is sufficient, and the petitioner, as a registered taxable person, is deemed to have notice of such orders. The petitioner's plea of ignorance due to the order being under a different sub-folder was rejected as the petitioner is expected to remain vigilant and monitor all relevant sections of the portal.Regarding medical grounds, the Court observed that the submitted prescriptions only partially covered the delay period and did not explain the delay from February to April 2025. Moreover, since the petitioner is a partnership firm, the incapacity of one partner does not preclude other partners or authorized signatories from acting within the prescribed period.Hence, the Court found the reasons cited by the petitioner neither satisfactory nor cogent to constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 107(4) of the Act.Issue 3: Legal Effect of Electronic Service and Requirement of Supplementary IntimationThe Court emphasized that uploading orders on the GST common portal is deemed valid service under Section 169(1)(d). Supplementary intimation by SMS or email, though facilitated by the system, is not mandatory or a condition precedent for service. The petitioner's failure to provide registered mobile number or email to substantiate the claim of non-receipt of such intimation undermined the argument.This principle aligns with the broader judicial approach that electronic service prescribed by statute imposes a duty on the recipient to remain vigilant and monitor the electronic portal, ensuring certainty and finality in tax administration.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS- 'The appellate authority may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of three months or six months, as the case may be, allow it to be presented within a further period of one month.' (Section 107(4) WBGST Act)- 'Under the WBGST regime, every registered person is deemed to have notice of orders made available on the designated electronic portal as per Rule 142 (1A) read with Section 169.'- 'Uploading the order on the portal fulfills the statutory mandate, supplementary intimation by SMS or E-mail is facilitative, not obligatory.'- 'The reasons cited for delay of filing of appeal is found not satisfactory one or cogent.'- 'The petitioner being a registered taxable person, cannot plead ignorance of any order merely because it was placed under a different sub folder.'- 'The medical prescriptions submitted explain only a part of the delay and fail to justify why the appeal could not have been drafted and filed during the substantial period from February 2025 to April 2025.'- 'In the absence of any cogent or comprehensive explanation that covers the entire period of delay, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 107 (4). Consequently, the refusal to condone the delay is perfectly in consonance with the statutory framework and the settled principles of fiscal discipline.'Final determinations:- The appellate authority's refusal to condone the delay in filing the appeal was upheld as lawful and justified.- The petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for delay beyond the prescribed and condonable period.- The deemed service of the assessment order by uploading on the GST portal was valid and effective.- The writ petition challenging the assessment order and the appellate authority's order was dismissed.