Sreema Entrerprises Represented By The Proprietor, Amiya Kumar Samanta vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the appellate order, which dismissed the appeal due to delay without adequately reflecting on the reasons for non-acceptability of the medical certificate and prescriptions provided by the petitioner, was unsustainable. The Court found that the appellate authority's order did not sufficiently address the petitioner's grounds for delay. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside on this ground alone. The matter was remanded to the appellate authority for fresh consideration. The appellate authority is directed to consider the petitioner's application for condonation of delay and, if satisfied with the grounds, condone the delay and proceed to hear the appeal on merits. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the sufficiency of the causes shown for condonation, leaving that decision to the appellate authority, which must provide cogent reasons for its conclusion.

Facts

The petitioner, Sreema Enterprises, assails an order dated January 28, 2025, passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017, read with Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. This order dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an adjudication order dated April 12, 2024. The petitioner had filed the appeal with a delay of 200 days. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal, stating that the petitioner failed to provide a plausible explanation for the significant delay. The petitioner had cited personal illness, supported by a medical certificate and prescriptions, as the reason for the delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of delay without adequately considering the explanation and supporting documents provided for condonation, thereby violating principles of natural justice, under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 and WBGST Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that the appellate authority failed to properly consider the medical certificate and prescriptions submitted to explain the 200-day delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner contended that these documents should have been accepted as sufficient grounds for condoning the delay. The revenue or State did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding the delay or the sufficiency of the petitioner's explanation.