Bharat Steel Industries And Anr. vs. The State Of West Bengal And Or

Held

The Court held that since it did not appear that an application for condonation of delay had been filed before the appellate authority, the writ petition would be disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner. The petitioner is permitted to approach the appellate authority by filing an application for condonation of delay, explaining the reasons for the delay in preferring the appeal. If the appellate authority finds the reasons sufficient and is satisfied, it shall condone the delay and proceed to hear the appeal on merits. The Court explicitly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the sufficiency of the causes for the delay, leaving that decision entirely to the appellate authority based on the material before it. Consequently, the impugned order would have no effect if the delay is condoned.

Facts

The petitioners, Bharat Steel Industries & Anr., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated December 3, 2024, passed by the appellate authority under Section 107(1) of the SGST/CGST Act, 2017. This order dismissed their appeal against an adjudication order dated April 18, 2024. The appellate authority's decision to dismiss the appeal was based on the fact that it was filed seven months after the adjudication order was communicated. The appellate authority noted that no application for condonation of delay was filed, and the petitioner's representative could not satisfactorily explain the delay. The petitioners' advocate submitted that the delay was due to their previous advocate suffering from a neurological problem.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering a potential application for condonation of delay, thereby violating principles of natural justice? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 107 of the SGST/CGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's contention: The delay in filing the appeal was attributable to the neurological ailment of their previous advocate, and this cause should have been considered by the appellate authority, possibly through an application for condonation of delay. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the State regarding the delay or the procedure before the appellate authority, other than what was observed by the appellate authority itself.