M/S Wellbelife Marketing Private Limited, Through Its Director Narayan Baraik vs. Principal Commissioner, Central Goods And Service Tax (CGST), Ranchi

Held

The Court held that the appeal was filed beyond the period prescribed under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Section 107(4) allows the Appellate Authority to condone delay only up to a further period of one month beyond the initial three months. The judgment refers to a previous decision of the same High Court in Marang Buru Trust vs. State of Jharkhand, which held that no appeal beyond four months from the date of communication of the order can be entertained by the appellate authority. In the present case, the appeal was filed on 27.02.2025 against an order dated 14.12.2023, which is substantially beyond the permissible period. Therefore, the Court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it in limine.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Wellbelife Marketing Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Central Excise, Ranchi. The appellate authority dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the cancellation of its GST registration, dated 14.12.2023, solely on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner's appeal was filed on 27.02.2025, which was significantly beyond the prescribed period. The petitioner contended that the delay occurred due to business closure since January 2023 owing to financial crunch and personal family problems, and that they were not given an adequate opportunity of hearing to explain this delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of limitation without providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to explain the delay, thereby violating principles of natural justice? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 and principles of natural justice). Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the Appellate Authority failed to grant them a proper hearing to explain the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal, which was caused by genuine financial difficulties and personal issues. They sought to have the appellate order set aside and the matter remanded for a fresh decision on merits after condoning the delay. Respondents' Argument: The respondents did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, their action of dismissing the appeal on limitation implies reliance on the prescribed time limits under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017.