GST appeal delay condoned where hardship and livelihood concerns justified writ relief despite statutory limitation

Delay of 426 days in filing the GST registration cancellation appeal was condoned because the petitioner showed bona fide financial hardship and inability to act within time beyond its control. The Court held that, while the appellate authority is bound by the statutory limitation under Section 107, constitutional writ jurisdiction may be used in appropriate cases to prevent denial of a remedy where rigid limitation would cause grave prejudice, especially when cancellation of GST registration may affect livelihood. The appellate order treating the appeal as time-barred was set aside, and the appeal was directed to be heard on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 426 days in filing the appeal against cancellation of GST registration could be condoned and the appeal directed to be heard on merits despite the statutory limitation under the GST law.

Analysis: The delay was stated to have occurred due to bona fide and unavoidable financial hardship, and the Court accepted that the inability to file the appeal within time was beyond the petitioner's control. It also noted the consistent view taken in earlier decisions that, in appropriate cases, writ jurisdiction may be invoked to prevent denial of a remedy where rigid application of limitation would cause grave prejudice. The Court further relied on the principle that cancellation of GST registration can result in loss of livelihood, and that the statutory appellate authority has no unrestricted discretion beyond the prescribed ceiling under Section 107, but constitutional courts may grant relief in appropriate cases.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned, the appellate order rejecting the appeal as time-barred was set aside, and the appellate authority was directed to entertain the appeal and decide it on merits.

---