M/S A.R. Enterprises Thru. Its Managing Partner Rakesh vs. Addl. Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax Appeal Lko. And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that the appellate authority erred in rejecting the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of limitation without considering the reasons for the delay. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's explanation for the delay, including financial hardship and the Managing Director's illness, which were beyond their control. Citing the Division Bench judgment in M/s Central Industrial Security Forces, FGUTPP Unit vs. Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, the Court found that in the interest of justice, the petitioner should be afforded an opportunity of hearing on merits. The reasoning was that while the Act may not empower the appellate authority to condone delays beyond 30 days, the circumstances presented warranted consideration. The ratio decidendi is that when a delay in filing an appeal is attributable to circumstances beyond the petitioner's control, and the appellate authority lacks power to condone such delay, the High Court may intervene in the interest of justice to grant a hearing on merits. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the first appellate authority to adjudicate the appeal on merits without raising objections on limitation, after providing notice and an opportunity of hearing.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s A.R. Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 08.12.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner CGST (Appeals), Lucknow. The appeal was rejected because it was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. The petitioner's appeal was filed on 16.08.2023, more than three months after receiving the order dated 27.03.2023 from the Superintendent, CGST Range-I. The appellate authority held that it lacked the power to condone delays exceeding 30 days, as per Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner explained the delay in a supplementary affidavit, citing financial hardship, inability to arrange counsel, and the Managing Director's serious illness requiring bed rest, supported by a medical certificate.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority erred in rejecting the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of limitation, without considering the reasons for the delay? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to circumstances beyond their control, including financial hardship and the Managing Director's illness. They relied on a Division Bench judgment of the High Court in M/s Central Industrial Security Forces, FGUTPP Unit vs. Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, which held that in such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to an opportunity of hearing on merits, even if the Act does not empower the appellate authority to condone delays beyond 30 days. Respondent's Contention: The respondent (Additional Commissioner CGST Appeals) contended that the appeal was filed beyond the statutory period of limitation and that the appellate authority had no power to condone the delay beyond 30 days as stipulated in Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, 2017.