New Vaibhav Jwellers Thr Its Proprietor vs. The Commissioner State GST Bhvan And Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, New Vaibhav Jewellers, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order of the appellate authority that dismissed their appeal due to being filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. The appellate authority, it is admitted, has no power to condone such delay. The respondents' counsel pointed out that the petitioner had filed another appeal before the same authority within a couple of months after the first appeal's decision, the reason for which was not explained. The petitioner's counsel stated this was due to wrong advice. The High Court noted that the appellate authority lacks jurisdiction to condone delay.
Held
The High Court held that the appellate authority's order, which dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation without having the power to condone the delay, was unsustainable. The Court reasoned that the matter should be decided on its merits. The principle established is that where an appellate authority lacks the power to condone delay, it cannot dismiss an appeal solely on that ground if the substantive appeal has merit. The Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the appellate authority for a decision on its merits. The petitioner undertook to furnish fresh up-to-date returns and pay the outstanding amount.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appellate authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of limitation, given that the authority lacks the power to condone delay? (Question of law turning on the procedural powers of the appellate authority under GST law). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the dismissal was based on a procedural technicality (limitation) where the appellate authority had no power to condone the delay, and that the matter should be decided on its merits. They also stated that the subsequent filing of another appeal was due to wrong advice. Revenue's contention: The learned A.G.P. for the respondents opposed the writ petition. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue regarding the merits of the appeal or the limitation issue beyond noting the petitioner's actions.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
977-WP-1593-25.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1593 OF 2025 New Vaibhav Jwellers ..PETITIONER VERSUS The Commissioner, State GST Bhavan and Others ..RESPONDENTS .... Mr. S.S. Dixit, Advocate for petitioner Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for respondents .... CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT AND NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ DATE : 26th JUNE, 2025 PER COURT :
Heard.
The petitioner's appeal has been turned down by the appellate authority on the ground of having not been preferred within the prescribed period of limitation. Admittedly, the authority concerned has no power to condone the delay occurred in filing such appeal. It has been pointed out by learned A.G.P. that the petitioner has preferred another appeal before the very authority within a couple of months post decision of the first appeal. Why this has been done so is not explained. 1 / 2 2025:BHC-AUG:16651-DB
977-WP-1593-25.odt
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was done so in view of wrong advise given to the petitioner. Be that as it may.
The matter needs to be decided on its own merits. Admittedly, the appellate authority does not have juri iction to condone the delay occurred in preferring the appeal. Let the matter be heard by the appellate authority before this Court exercises its juri iction under section 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned A.G.P. opposes the writ petition.
In view of above, the order impugned herein stands set aside. The matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to decide the same on it own merits. The petitioner undertakes to furnish fresh up-to-date returns for a period for which those had already not submitted and pay the outstanding amount. ( NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. ) ( R.G. AVACHAT, J. ) S 2 / 2
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.