Ashok Kaduba Tapre Prop Shivam Trading Company vs. The Commissioner Of GST Appeals And Others

Facts

The Petitioner, Ashok Kaduba Tapre Prop Shivam Trading Company, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The Petitioner's appeal under Section 107 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was dismissed by the appellate authority due to a delay of 34 days. The Petitioner contended that there was no provision for condonation of delay in preferring such appeals, leading to the dismissal. The Petitioner is now before the High Court challenging this dismissal. The Respondents are the Commissioner of GST Appeals and others.

Held

The High Court allowed the petition. The Court noted that the appeal under Section 107 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was dismissed due to a 34-day delay, and there was no provision for condonation of delay. However, the Court found that the matter needed to be heard on merits. Therefore, the Court decided to relegate the parties back to the appellate authority. The appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal under Section 107 on its own merits within six months from the date of receipt of the order, after providing the Petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The Petitioner was directed to appear before the appellate authority on July 30, 2025. Prayer clause (D) of the petition was not pressed by the Petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority erred in dismissing the appeal solely on grounds of delay, given the absence of a specific provision for condonation of delay under Section 107 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner likely argued that the dismissal was too harsh and that the matter should be heard on merits, implying a need for the appellate authority to consider the appeal despite the delay, possibly by interpreting existing provisions or seeking a directive from the High Court. Respondents' Argument: The learned Advocate for the Respondents opposed the Petition, suggesting they likely argued that the appellate authority acted correctly in dismissing the appeal as per the statutory provisions, as there was no mechanism to condone the delay.