M/S Shree Bnm Industry Through Its Authorized Signatory Anil Kumar Verma vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Held

The Court held that the appeal filed by the petitioner was belated by 11 months. Citing its own previous decision in M/s. Marang Buru Trust v. The State of Jharkhand and others (W.P. (T) No. 5829 of 2024, dated November 18, 2024), the Court reiterated that under the CGST Act, a delay of more than four months cannot be condoned. Therefore, for reasons similar to the cited precedent, the present writ petition was also dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that the CGST Act prescribes a strict timeline for filing appeals, and delays exceeding the permissible limit, as interpreted by the Court, are not condonable. No costs were awarded.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Shree BNM Industry, challenged an order dated July 15, 2024, passed by the Appellate Authority (4th respondent). This order dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an order-in-original dated May 27, 2023, issued by the Superintendent CGST. The dismissal was based on the appeal being filed belatedly, with a delay of 11 months, on April 28, 2024. The petitioner sought relief from the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi through this writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority was justified in dismissing the petitioner's appeal on the grounds of being filed belatedly with a delay of 11 months, considering the provisions of the CGST Act? The petitioner argued that the appeal was filed belatedly. The respondents, including the State of Jharkhand and the Union of India, contended that the appeal was indeed filed with a significant delay. The Court's decision hinges on the interpretation and application of the CGST Act regarding condonation of delay in filing appeals. The petitioner sought to have the delay condoned or the appeal considered on merits, while the respondents relied on the statutory limitations for filing appeals and the Appellate Authority's discretion.