M/S Gangamai Industries And Constructions LTD., Ahmednagar vs. The Commissioner Of Customes, Central Excise And Service Tax, GST, A.Bad Now The Com. GST Nashik

Held

The Court condoned the delay of 52 days in filing the statutory appeal. The Court reasoned that when the cause of substantial justice is pitted against technical considerations, the cause of substantial justice should be subserved. The Court considered the reasons provided by the applicant, which included seeking legal advice from a consultant and the subsequent time taken by their High Court counsel to prepare the appeal after reviewing the documents. While the respondent argued that the grounds were insufficient, the Court found the stated reasons to be acceptable for condoning the delay. The Civil Application for condonation of delay was accordingly disposed of, allowing the appeal to proceed on merits.

Facts

M/s Gangamai Industries and Constructions Ltd. (the applicant) sought condonation of a delay of 52 days in filing a statutory appeal before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The appeal was filed against an order or action by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, GST, Ahmednagar. The applicant stated that they sought legal advice from a consultant, an IRS officer, who advised them to file a statutory appeal. Subsequently, they approached their High Court counsel. The preparation of the appeal after reviewing the relevant documents caused the delay. The respondent, represented by Mr. Ladda, opposed the condonation application, arguing that the grounds for delay were insufficient and incorrect.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 52 days in filing the statutory appeal is liable to be condoned on the grounds stated by the applicant? (Question of fact) Arguments for the Petitioner/Appellant: The applicant contended that they were advised by a consultant, an IRS officer, to file a statutory appeal. After receiving this advice, they approached their High Court counsel. The process of reviewing the relevant documents and preparing the appeal took time, leading to the delay. They implicitly argued that these reasons constitute sufficient cause for the delay. Arguments for the Revenue/State: The respondent opposed the condonation application, arguing that no sufficient cause was stated for the delay. They specifically challenged the grounds for delay as being incorrect and insufficient.