M/S Vasudeva Engineering vs. The Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Held

The Court held that while the Appellate Authority is bound by the time limitations prescribed under Section 107 of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, this does not curtail the High Court's inherent powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to exercise its jurisdiction and condone delays in appropriate cases. The Court reasoned that the provisions of the Act are intended to provide relief to businessmen, and if delays occur due to various business reasons, a businessman should not be left without a remedy. The cancellation of GST registration has significant cascading effects. Therefore, while finality is important, an efficacious remedy must be available. The Court found that the petitioners had already submitted the pre-deposit amount. Consequently, the Court condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The Appellate Authority was directed to hear and decide the appeals on merits within three months. The Court explicitly stated that the powers to hear appeals under Section 107 are not subject to filing within the prescribed time to the extent that it deprives a person of claiming the right of hearing by filing a writ petition for condonation of delay.

Facts

The petitioners in these 17 connected writ petitions had their appeals rejected by the Appellate Authority under the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The rejection was based on the appeals being filed beyond the stipulated time period. While the petitioners had paid the pre-deposit amount, the appeals were filed after the initial period of three months and even beyond the additional 30 days for condonation provided under Section 107 of the Act. The petitioners sought relief from the High Court, arguing that the Appellate Authority's rejection was unjustified, especially considering the potential cascading effect of GST registration cancellations on other businesses.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority was legally correct in rejecting appeals filed after the requisite time period laid down in the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, specifically under Section 107, even when the pre-deposit was paid? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that the Appellate Authority's rejection was unjustified. They relied on the Supreme Court's observation in M/s Tecnimont Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and others, where the Court, while not finding an order unjustified for non-deposit, left it open for the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 to condone requirements based on case facts. They also referred to a previous decision of this Court in M/s Steel Kart Vs. State of Haryana and others (CWP-17348-2024), where the Court exercised powers under Article 226 to direct the Appellate Authority to consider an appeal on merits despite delay, when the order was not known within the prescribed time. The petitioners argued that the Act's provisions should not curtail the High Court's powers under Article 226 to condone delay, especially when businessmen could be left remediless due to delays in business affairs. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (revenue or state).