Nancy Malik vs. Deputy Commissioner And Others

Held

The High Court held that the delay in filing the appeal was unavoidable. The Court, while confirming the action of the Additional Appellate Authority in rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay, decided to condone the delay based on the circumstances presented before it. The Court reasoned that it was in the interest of justice to allow the appeal to be heard on its merits. Therefore, the Court directed the Appellate Authority to hear the appeal on its merits and decide the same by passing a speaking order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to both parties. The Court further stipulated that the appeal should be decided within a period of four months from the date of the order. The ratio decidendi is that where delay in filing an appeal is unavoidable and the merits of the case warrant consideration, the appellate authority should condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits after providing a fair hearing, to ensure substantive justice.

Facts

The petitioner, Ms. Nancy Malik, filed a writ petition challenging the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, CGST Division, Amb, rejecting her appeal against an order from the Additional Appellate Authority. The rejection was solely on the grounds of delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner argued that the delay was unavoidable. The revenue, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, accepted notice. The High Court was invited to consider the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s Vasudeva Engineering v. The Union of India and others, and a connected case, which dealt with similar issues. The court was urged to condone the delay, direct the Appellate Authority to hear the appeal on merits, and pass a speaking order after providing an opportunity of hearing to both parties, with the appeal to be decided within four months.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Additional Appellate Authority was unavoidable and should be condoned, considering the circumstances presented by the petitioner? 2. Whether the Additional Appellate Authority erred in rejecting the appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the merits of the case, thereby necessitating a remand for a fresh adjudication? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the delay in filing the appeal was unavoidable. She relied on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Vasudeva Engineering v. The Union of India and others, and connected cases, to support her claim that the Appellate Authority should have considered the circumstances of the delay and the merits of the appeal. The petitioner sought an order directing the Appellate Authority to hear the appeal on merits after condoning the delay and passing a speaking order. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue's counsel accepted notice and did not appear to have made any specific arguments against the petitioner's submissions beyond acknowledging the court's attention to the relevant Supreme Court judgments.