https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784496 The dominant issue was whether the appellate authority lawfully refused to entertain the statutory appeal against an order under s.73 of the 2017 Act on the ground of delay. The HC held that the stated cause-illness of the petitioner's accountant, supported by affidavit-was not disbelieved, and the authority erred in treating the accountant's lack of status as authorised signatory as fatal, since an accountant's role in preparing an appeal is material. As the 57-day delay was not attributable to gross negligence or a lackadaisical attitude, it constituted "sufficient cause" under s.5 of the Limitation Act, applying prior HC precedent; accordingly, the delay was condoned, the rejection order was set aside, and the appeal was remanded for fresh decision on merits. en-us Mon, 08 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Jan 2026 08:48:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784496 The dominant issue was whether the appellate authority lawfully refused to entertain the statutory appeal against an order under s.73 of the 2017 Act on the ground of delay. The HC held that the stated cause-illness of the petitioner's accountant, supported by affidavit-was not disbelieved, and the authority erred in treating the accountant's lack of status as authorised signatory as fatal, since an accountant's role in preparing an appeal is material. As the 57-day delay was not attributable to gross negligence or a lackadaisical attitude, it constituted "sufficient cause" under s.5 of the Limitation Act, applying prior HC precedent; accordingly, the delay was condoned, the rejection order was set aside, and the appeal was remanded for fresh decision on merits. Case-Laws GST Mon, 08 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784496