M/S. Petawatts Solar Solutions Private Limited. vs. The State Of Telangana
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Petawatts Solar Solutions Private Limited, filed an appeal against an assessment order dated April 30, 2024. The appeal was filed on August 12, 2024, which was 12 days beyond the initial 90-day limitation period prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Appellate Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Hyderabad Rural Division, rejected the appeal solely on the ground of this delay, without condoning the 12-day delay, despite the petitioner's contention that the delay was within the condonable period of 30 days and was sufficiently explained. The petitioner challenged this rejection order before the High Court.
Held
The High Court held that the Appellate Joint Commissioner had taken a "too technical view" in rejecting the appeal. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court for condonation of delay, which emphasize a "justice-oriented approach" and preferring substantial justice over technical considerations, the Court found that the delay of 12 days, being within the condonable period and sufficiently explained, should have been condoned. The Court reasoned that refusing to condone delay can lead to a meritorious matter being thrown out, defeating the ends of justice, whereas condoning it allows for a decision on merits. Therefore, the impugned appellate order rejecting the appeal was set aside, and the application for condonation of delay was treated as allowed. The Appellate Joint Commissioner was directed to decide the appeal on its merits. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Appellate Joint Commissioner of State Tax erred in rejecting the appeal on the ground of a 12-day delay, when such delay was within the condonable period of 30 days as per Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, and was sufficiently explained by the petitioner? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the delay of 12 days was within the condonable period of 30 days. They argued that they had demonstrated sufficient grounds for the delay, and the rejection of the appeal without considering this amounted to a violation of natural justice and their constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. They relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding condonation of delay, as applied by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P. No. 15490 of 2023. Revenue's arguments: The respondents argued that the appellate authority had rightly passed the impugned order.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER i
THE HON,BLE THE ACTING CIIIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION No.5299 of 2025 ORDER (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justicc Sujog Paul) Sri Siripuram Keshava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T. Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader represents Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, for the respondents
With the consent, frnally heard
The challenge is mounted to the appellate order dated O8.O1.2O25 (Annexure-P1) whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the Assessment Order dated 30.O4.2024 was rejected. The appeal was admittedly preferred against the said order dated 3O.O4.2O24 on 12.08.2024. The initial period of limitation is 9O days, which is extendable by 30 days, as per Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act,2OI7 '
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the little delay of 12 days, which was within condonable period, was properly explained and there was no malice or attempt to take arly undue benefit. Thus, the application for condonation of /_l
2 delay shouid have been dealt with leniently. He plac:ed reliance on Andhra Pradesh High Court order in W.p.No. IS49O of 2023 decided on 19.O7.2023. 5. The other side raised objection and submit.s that the appellate auth ority has rightly passed the impugned order.
We have considered the rival contentions. 7 . Admr.t:edly, the petitioner preferred the appeal within condonable perriod of limitation. The Apex Court culled out the principles for the purpose of considering an application for condonation ,tf delay which is considered by the Andhra pradesh High Court in W.P.No.1549O of 2023. The relevant portion reads thus:
"
The word 'sufhcient cause" as appearing in Sec tion lO7 @l of CGST Act, 2Ol7 for the purprose of seek.ng condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal) has been intcrpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the light of Section 5 of Limitation Act relating to Land Ar:cluisition Matter would guide the Court in de ciding the point. In Collector, Land Acquisition Vs, Mst. Katiji (AIR 1987 SC 1353). V/hile deciding application under Section 5 Lirriit.ation Act, "justice oriented approach" is re,quired to br: adopted. The expression 'sufficient calLse, is aclequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful marrner which subserve thr: ends of jr1s116. that being the life-purpose for the exirttence of tlet: institution of Courts. \ \
3
Hon'ble Apex Court laid down the following principle to be followed while dealing with an application seeking condonation of delay:-
Ordinarily a litigant does not 'stald to benefit by lodging an aPPeal late.
Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very ttrreshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that a pedaltic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner'
When substantial justice ald technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for ttre other side cannot claim to have vested right rn injustice treing done because of a nondeliberate delaY.
There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately .or on account of culpable ne ce, or on account of mala fides. A litiqant doe stard to benefrt by s not resortinqtod elav. In fact he runs a senous risk." (Emphasis SuPPlied)
If we apply the said principles in the instant case, in our view, a too technical view was taken by the learned appellate authority ald therefore, the impugned order deserves to be jettisoned. g. Resultantly, the impugned appellate order dated O8.O 1.2025 is set aside. The application for condonation of \ II
t,.16.::. 4 .'- t{:;r To, delay shall ber r,reated to be allowed. The appellate auttrority shall decide the app,eal on merits.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Interlc,cutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. .A.V.S. PRASAD GISTRAR /ffRUE COPY// OFFICER
Two CD CoPies KS 6
The Principal lSecretary, Revenue (CT-ll) Dept' Secretariat Telangana'
The Appklate ,Joint commissioner of state Tax, Hyderabad Rural Division' ' Hfi ;56;i-ii'h ii;,. c.r'-Com[r"*' t't"rnpallv' Hvderabad' relansana' 3.TheAssistantCommissione(ST)'Ir/adhapurN3,Madhapur,Telangana.
One CC to litll SlRlPURAIvl KESHAVA Advocate [OPUC]
Two CCs to fiRl SWAROOP OORILLA Special Govt Pleader for State Tax' - fiigh c"rrt f"i tn" Strt" of Telangana at Hyderabad' [oUT] K B : ASSIS
I HIGH COURT DATED:2410212025 ORDER WP.No.5299 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Be S'1A, 1 & (: c J3 04 V,tit'2:"ii1 l * * DgSpAT ar'c.l 03 q 0 I f I I I tI i II ( W
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.