M/S Shivam Traders vs. Proper Officer Cum Superintendent, Karnal And Anr

Held

The Court noted that the assessment order was conveyed on April 21, 2023, making the three-month period for appeal expire on July 21, 2023. The First Appellate Authority has the jurisdiction to condone a further period of one month, up to August 21, 2023, if sufficient cause is shown. The Court found that the First Appellate Authority incorrectly held the delay to be beyond four months, as the date of communication should be excluded. However, the Court also observed that the petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay before the First Appellate Authority. The appellate authority's order highlighted the lack of medical documents and a declaration from the advocate, deeming the reasons unsatisfactory and not showing sufficient cause. The petitioner's attempt to provide such documents at the High Court stage, after significant delays in the writ petition's processing and multiple adjournments, was not found to be justified. Therefore, the Court found no grounds for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution and dismissed the petition.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shivam Traders, challenged an order dated September 27, 2024, by the Commissioner (Appeals) and an earlier order dated March 24, 2023, by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division Karnal. The petitioner's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was dismissed for being filed beyond the prescribed time limit. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed on March 24, 2023, and communicated on April 21, 2023. The statutory period of three months for filing an appeal would expire on July 21, 2023, with an additional one-month condonable period ending on August 21, 2023, the date the appeal was filed. The delay was attributed to the petitioner's advocate's wife being hospitalized in June and July 2023, preventing timely filing. The respondents opposed the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the First Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal on the ground of delay, contrary to the provisions of Section 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act)? The petitioner argued that the appeal was filed within the extended period of four months, as the assessment order was communicated on April 21, 2023, making the deadline for appeal August 21, 2023. The delay was due to the advocate's personal circumstances, which constituted sufficient cause. The petitioner relied on the principle that the date of communication of the order is crucial for calculating the appeal period. The respondents contended that the writ petition should be dismissed. They argued that the petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay before the First Appellate Authority and did not provide supporting documentary evidence for the advocate's wife's hospitalization. The First Appellate Authority's finding that the delay exceeded four months and was not condonable under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act was also supported.