TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Delay in Filing GST Appeal Condoned Under Article 21, Case Remitted for Merit Decision</h1> <h3>Rajesh Kumar Versus Union of India and Ors.</h3> The HC set aside the order rejecting the appeal due to a brief delay and condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that denial of GST registration ... Rejection of appeal on the ground of few days delay - rejection of application for revocation of the GST registration - HELD THAT:- It cannot be disputed that the petitioner would not be able to continue with his business in absence of registration and thus would be deprived of his livelihood which amounts to violation of his right to life and liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The order dated 22.07.2025 is set aside. The delay in filing of appeal before respondent No. 2 stands condoned and respondent No. 2 shall now decide the appeal on its merits - Petition disposed off. The Himachal Pradesh High Court, through Justice Sandeep Sharma (oral judgment), addressed a petition challenging the rejection of an appeal by Respondent No. 2 dated 22.07.2025, which dismissed the appeal as barred by a delay of 10 months and 14 days. The petitioner, a GST-registered dealer, faced cancellation of GST registration suo motu by Respondent No. 4 due to non-filing of returns and non-payment of tax. The revocation application was rejected by Respondent No. 3, and the subsequent appeal was dismissed solely on the ground of delay. The Court criticized the hyper-technical approach of Respondent No. 2, noting it lacked authority to condone delay. Citing precedents from various High Courts (including Karnataka, Uttarakhand, and Madras), the Court emphasized the importance of substantive justice over procedural technicalities. It further recognized that cancellation of registration adversely affects the petitioner's livelihood, invoking Article 21 (right to life and liberty). Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 22.07.2025, condoned the delay in filing the appeal, and directed Respondent No. 2 to decide the appeal on merits. The writ petition was disposed of with parties bearing their own costs. The Court held: the delay 'would be fatal to the maintainability of the appeal' is rejected, and emphasized that the petitioner's right to livelihood cannot be compromised by procedural hyper-technicalities.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
