Jbr Constructions Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that while the petitioner had not challenged the correctness of the impugned order in the present Writ Petition, they were seeking indulgence to condone the delay of 65 days in preferring the appeal due to unavoidable circumstances, specifically severe ill-health supported by medical prescriptions. The Court noted that Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, provides a period of three months for filing an appeal, extendable by one month upon showing sufficient cause. Since the delay exceeded this condonable period, the petitioner approached the High Court under its writ jurisdiction. Considering the petitioner's health issues and the significant tax amount involved, the Court was inclined to condone the delay. The Writ Petition was allowed, permitting the petitioner to prefer an appeal before Respondent No. 3 within one week from the date of receiving the order, subject to depositing 20% of the disputed tax.

Facts

The petitioner, a private limited company engaged in works contract services, received letters from the revenue regarding discrepancies in GST payments for the period July 2017 to March 2020. After the petitioner provided explanations, Respondent No. 4 issued a show cause notice proposing a demand of Rs. 1,33,19,137/- along with interest and penalty. The petitioner filed a detailed reply, but Respondent No. 4 passed an impugned order. The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus to declare this order unconstitutional and arbitrary, and to condone a delay of 65 days in filing an appeal before Respondent No. 3 under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, citing severe ill-health.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court has the jurisdiction to condone a delay of 65 days in preferring an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, when the statutory period for appeal, including the extended period for sufficient cause, has expired? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that due to severe and uncontrollable ill-health (diabetes and pneumonia) for six months, they were unable to file the appeal within the stipulated time. They emphasized that a substantial tax amount was involved and sought an opportunity to challenge the impugned order on merits before the appellate authority. They relied on the medical prescriptions filed as evidence of their ill-health. Revenue's contention: The learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC stated that if the Court was inclined to allow the Writ Petition, suitable terms could be imposed.