M/S. Rama Steel Trade PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Ors

Held

The Court held that the delay of 57 days in filing the appeal was not attributable to gross negligence or a lackadaisical attitude on the part of the petitioner. The Court acknowledged the accountant's illness as the reason for the delay, supported by an affidavit. It reasoned that while an accountant may not be an authorized signatory, their role in gathering facts and figures for an appeal is significant and cannot be ignored. Therefore, the appellate authority ought to have condoned the delay in terms of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as per the precedent set in S.K. Chakraborty and Sons vs. Union of India & Ors. Accordingly, the Court condoned the delay, set aside the appellate order dated July 3, 2024, and remanded the matter to the appellate authority for consideration of the appeal on its merits. The Court clarified that the petitioner would not be entitled to challenge future appellate proceedings on grounds of limitation due to the belated filing of the writ petition.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Rama Steel Trade Pvt. Ltd., challenged an order dated July 3, 2024, passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. This appellate order had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an order dated January 24, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the same Act, solely on the grounds of delay. The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to their accountant falling ill and undergoing treatment during the relevant period. The accountant had also filed an affidavit before the appellate authority to this effect. The appeal was lodged with a delay of 57 days. The appellate authority rejected the appeal despite not disbelieving the accountant's illness, stating the accountant was not an authorized signatory. The petitioner approached the High Court via a writ petition, as the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the Act was not yet functional.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 57 days in filing the appeal under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, occasioned by the illness of the petitioner's accountant, should have been condoned by the appellate authority? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the delay was solely due to the accountant's illness, supported by an affidavit. They argued that the accountant's role in preparing the appeal, even if not an authorized signatory, is crucial and should not be disregarded. The petitioner also highlighted that the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 was not functional, leaving them remediless if the writ petition was not entertained. They relied on the principle that delay not attributable to gross negligence should be condoned, citing the case of S.K. Chakraborty and Sons vs. Union of India & Ors. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State or Revenue regarding the condonation of delay or the merits of the appeal.