Ms Uk Engineering Works vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s UK Engineering Works, challenged an order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals)-cum-Appellate Authority, Gurugram. This order dismissed the petitioner's appeal filed under Section 107 of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as time-barred. The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the failure of their appointed consultant to perform their duties. The petitioner sought condonation of this delay, referencing a coordinate bench's order in similar cases. However, the Court noted that the petitioner had not filed an appeal within the initial three-month period or the further one-month extendable period allowed under Section 107 of the HGST Act. The appeal was filed beyond these permissible limits.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's argument for condonation of delay based on a previous coordinate bench's order was not available. The Court noted that the petitioner had not filed an appeal within the statutory period of three months, nor within the further one-month period for which the Appellate Authority could condone delay under Section 107 of the HGST Act. The appeal was concededly filed beyond these permissible limits and was rightly dismissed by the Appellate Authority as time-barred. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner had not been vigilant in responding to the show cause notice issued prior to the impugned order, despite having opportunities. The Court stated that the mere failure of an appointed consultant to perform their duties does not entitle the petitioner to claim condonation of delay. Since no action had been taken against the consultant and the appeal was admittedly time-barred, the Court found no ground to exercise its jurisdiction to condone the delay. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court can condone the delay in filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, when the delay exceeds the one-month period permissible for condonation by the Appellate Authority itself? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the High Court should grant the benefit of condonation of delay, citing a common order passed by a Coordinate Bench in M/s Vasudeva Engineering vs. Union of India and others and M/s LNM Fire vs. State of Haryana and others. They attributed the delay to their consultant's failure to perform duties and argued that not condoning the delay would cause prejudice. Revenue's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue or state respondents. However, the Court's reasoning implies that the petitioner's failure to respond to show cause notices and the admitted time-barred nature of the appeal were considered against them.