M/S. Leeways Integrated Services Private Limited vs. The Commissioner Of GST

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Leeways Integrated Services Private Limited, filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition (C.M.P.) seeking condonation of a 258-day delay in filing a writ appeal. The appeal was against an order dated June 25, 2024, passed in W.P.(MD) No. 28108 of 2023. The respondents are the Commissioner of GST, the Superintendent of GST, and three private limited companies (M/s. CALSEA Footwear Private Limited, M/s. SAC Engine Components Private Limited, and M/s. Amway India Enterprises Private Limited). Notice was ordered on April 28, 2025. Respondents 1 and 2 entered appearance on August 20, 2025, and respondent 5 on August 25, 2025. Respondents 3 and 4 were served but did not appear. No counter-affidavit was filed by any respondent.

Held

The Court allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Petition, thereby condoning the delay of 258 days in filing the writ appeal. The reasoning provided by the Court was based on the fact that the respondents had been served and had entered appearance, and crucially, no counter-affidavit had been filed by any of them. The Court found this sufficient to grant the condonation. The operative direction was for the Registry to number the writ appeal if the papers were otherwise in order and to post it for admission in the usual course. No specific issues regarding the merits of the underlying writ petition or the order under appeal were decided, as the petition was solely for condonation of delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 258 days in filing the writ appeal should be condoned, considering the circumstances presented by the petitioner. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner sought condonation of the delay, implying that there were sufficient reasons for the delay, although specific reasons were not detailed in the provided text. The primary argument was for the court to exercise its discretion to allow the appeal to be filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue or state respondents (Respondents 1 & 2) regarding the delay. Their appearance was noted, but no opposition to the condonation petition was documented. The private respondents (3, 4, and 5) either did not appear or their arguments were not recorded.