Principal Commissioner, GST, Delhi South vs. M/S. Indraprasth Gas Limited

Facts

The appellant, Principal Commissioner, GST, Delhi South, sought to appeal an order dated 14.11.2017 passed by the Customs Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The appeal was filed with a delay of 1310 days. The appellant's application for condonation of delay cited the transition to the GST regime on 01.07.2017, leading to the bifurcation of Commissionerates and alleged miscommunication in the delivery of the CESTAT order. The appellant claimed to have become aware of the order only on 06.07.2021, after receiving a letter from the Deputy Commissioner-Review, GST-Gurugram. The appellant also stated that the order was obtained from the CESTAT Registrar on 04.08.2021 and that a reply from the Registrar regarding dispatch timeline was awaited.

Held

The Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay. The Court found the reasons provided by the appellant for the 1310-day delay to be untenable in law. The Court noted that the appellant had not made any attempts to ascertain the status of its appeal for over three and a half years after the CESTAT order was passed on 14.11.2017. The Court also took judicial notice that CESTAT orders have been uploaded on its website since January 2017, making the appellant's claim of lack of knowledge or means to acquire knowledge unacceptable. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's observations in *State of M.P. v. Bherulal* and *Postmaster General v. Living Media (India) Ltd.*, emphasizing that government departments cannot claim a separate period of limitation due to bureaucratic processes or technological advancements and must provide reasonable and acceptable explanations for delays. The Court held that the appellant had miserably failed to provide cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a significant delay. Consequently, the appeal was closed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 1310 days in filing the appeal should be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the appellant (Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and principles of condonation of delay). Petitioner's Arguments: The appellant argued that the delay was caused due to the transition to the GST regime, which resulted in the bifurcation of Commissionerates and potential miscommunication in the delivery of the CESTAT order. They claimed to have only become aware of the order recently and made efforts to obtain the certified copy. They relied on the principle of giving some leeway for government inefficiencies. Revenue's Arguments: The respondent (M/s. Indraprasth Gas Limited) did not explicitly present arguments on the delay condonation in the provided text, as the focus was on the appellant's application and the Court's reasoning. However, the Court's observations implicitly address the lack of a "plausible and acceptable explanation" from the appellant.