M/S. Kalyani Brothers vs. The Superintendent Central GST And Central Excise, Raiganj Range And Ors.

Held

The Court held that while the petitioner's explanation for the delay was not entirely satisfactory, particularly the absence of a specific date of knowledge of the order in original, it did provide a "modicum of explanation." The Court considered the fact that the GST Tribunal, the final fact-finding authority, was not yet functional. It reasoned that if the delay were not condoned, the petitioner would lose the forum to appeal. Therefore, to provide the petitioner an opportunity to press their appeal on merits, the Court decided to condone the delay. This was made conditional upon the petitioner paying Rs. 10,000/- to the State Legal Services Authority within three weeks and furnishing proof of payment to the appellate authority. Upon compliance, the appellate authority was directed to hear the appeal on merits, rendering the impugned appellate order ineffective. The Court clarified that failure to make the payment would nullify this order. The issue of the merits of the original appeal was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Kalyani Brothers, filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated June 26, 2025. This order, passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017, dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an order in original dated December 22, 2023, passed under Section 73 of the same Act. The dismissal was solely on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner contended that the delay occurred because the order in original was uploaded on the GST portal under a different tab than previous notices, causing them to miss the filing deadline. The revenue argued that the petitioner did not specify when they became aware of the order in original, justifying the appellate authority's decision.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal on the ground of delay, considering the explanation provided for the delay? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the appellate authority failed to appreciate that the delay was due to the order in original being uploaded under a different 'tab' on the GST portal compared to earlier notices and orders. This change in uploading protocol, they contended, led to them being unable to track the order in time and consequently missing the prescribed appeal timeline. Revenue's arguments: The CGST authorities argued that the petitioner failed to specify the date on which they gained knowledge of the order in original. Therefore, the appellate authority was justified in refusing to condone the delay and entertain the appeal on its merits.