Four-month delay in filing statutory appeal blamed on counsel's spouse hospitalisation rejected for lack of proof; writ denied

The dominant issue was whether refusal to condone a delay of over four months in filing the statutory appeal warranted interference under Art. 226. The HC held that "sufficient cause" was not established because no contemporaneous material was produced to substantiate the asserted hospitalisation of counsel's spouse, and no supporting affidavit or documents were filed either before the appellate authority or with the writ petition despite repeated opportunities and adjournments. Consequently, the HC found no arbitrariness or perversity in the delay-based dismissal and declined to exercise writ jurisdiction; the petition was dismissed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether the First Appellate Authority committed a material error in computing limitation under Section 107 of the CGST Act by treating the appeal as filed beyond the condonable period.

(ii) Whether, on the facts placed on record, the petitioner established "sufficient cause" warranting condonation of delay within the additional one month contemplated by Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, and whether refusal to interfere under Article 226 was justified.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i): Computation of limitation and the condonable window under Section 107

Legal framework: The Court considered the statutory scheme under Section 107 of the CGST Act, including the three-month period to file an appeal and the First Appellate Authority's jurisdiction to condone a further period of one month upon showing sufficient cause.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the assessment order was communicated on 21.04.2023; therefore, the three-month period expired on 21.07.2023, and the additional condonable one month extended up to 21.08.2023. The Court held that, while calculating limitation, the date of communication/passing is to be excluded. On this basis, it found that the First Appellate Authority was incorrect in holding that the appeal was filed beyond four months and hence non-condonable.

Conclusion: The Court conclusively determined that the First Appellate Authority erred in stating that the appeal was beyond the statutory outer limit, since the appeal date (21.08.2023) fell within the condonable one-month window, subject to proof of sufficient cause.

Issue (ii): Sufficiency of cause for condonation and scope of interference under Article 226

Legal framework: The Court applied the requirement that condonation within the additional one month is permissible only if "sufficient cause" is shown, and examined whether writ interference was warranted where the petitioner failed to substantiate the stated cause.

Interpretation and reasoning: The petitioner relied on the explanation that the appeal could not be filed earlier because the entrusted counsel's wife was hospitalised in June-July 2023, leading to engagement of another counsel and filing on 21.08.2023. The Court, however, found that the petitioner had not produced any supporting medical documents or any declaration from the concerned counsel before the First Appellate Authority, and the same deficiency persisted in the writ proceedings: no document evidencing hospitalisation, no description of ailment, and no supporting material was annexed even with the writ petition. The Court declined the request to grant further time to produce documents, noting repeated opportunities and delays, including refiling after removal of registry objections and multiple adjournments, without any effort to place the requisite material on record.

Conclusion: The Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for delay and found no ground to interfere in exercise of Article 226 jurisdiction. The writ petition was dismissed.

---