Gurpreet Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

Held

The Court held that while the Supreme Court in M/s Tecnimont Pvt. Ltd. ruled that appellate authorities lack the power to condone delay beyond statutory provisions, the High Court, exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, can condone such delays. The Court found the petitioner's delay to be bona fide, stemming from his involvement in a criminal case and subsequent lack of knowledge of the order cancelling his GST registration. The Court emphasized the cascading effect of GST registration cancellation on other businesses and the importance of providing an efficacious remedy. Citing its own precedent in M/s Vasudeva Engineering, the Court decided to condone the delay. The Court directed the appellate authority to examine the appeal purely on merits within three months. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

Facts

The petitioner, Gurpreet Singh, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging an order dated 18.11.2024 passed by respondent No. 2, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal as time-barred. The petitioner had filed an appeal against an order that resulted in the cancellation of his GST registration. The delay in filing the appeal was attributed to the petitioner pursuing a criminal case and having no knowledge of the order passed against him. The petitioner had also submitted the pre-deposit amount required for the hearing of the appeal. The respondents/Revenue argued that no cogent reasons were provided by the petitioner for condoning the delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority has the power to condone delay beyond the provisions of Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, considering the Supreme Court's ruling in M/s Tecnimont Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Punjab and others (2019 INSC 105)? 2. Whether the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can condone the delay in filing an appeal when the delay is bona fide and the order under challenge affects the petitioner's livelihood? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the delay was bona fide, arising from his pursuit of a criminal case and lack of knowledge of the adverse order. He argued that the cancellation of GST registration has cascading effects on other businesses and that a remedy should be available. He relied on the High Court's own previous decisions in M/s Vasudeva Engineering v. The Union of India and others (CWP-27468-2023 & other connected cases, decided on 24.10.2024) which held that the powers under Article 226 can be exercised to condone delay in such circumstances. Revenue's arguments: The Revenue argued that no cogent reasons were provided by the petitioner for condoning the delay.