H.K. Body Builders Through Its Prop Amit Sikka vs. State Of Haryana And Another

Facts

The petitioner, H.K. Body Builders, through its proprietor Sh. Amit Sikka, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 16.12.2024. This order dismissed their appeal against the cancellation of their GST registration, which was originally ordered on 13.01.2020. The dismissal was solely on the grounds of delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to mental distress following the demise of his mother and significant business losses incurred during the Covid-19 pandemic. The respondents, the State of Haryana and another authority, contended that the delay was substantial (928 days) and that the HGST Act, 2017, strictly limits the condonable period.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's grounds for delay, while understandable, did not constitute 'sufficient cause' as contemplated by Section 107(4) of the HGST Act, 2017, for condoning such an extensive delay. The Court noted that the order cancelling registration was dated 13.01.2020, and the appeal was filed on 15.12.2024, resulting in a delay of 928 days. While acknowledging the Covid-19 pandemic period and the Supreme Court's order extending limitation periods up to 29.05.2022, the appeal was still filed significantly later. The Court emphasized that Section 107(4) permits condonation for a further period of only one month beyond the initial three months (or six months, as the case may be) if sufficient cause is shown. The delay of 928 days far exceeded this permissible extended period. The Court referred to Supreme Court judgments in M/s Simples Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Union of India Vs. M/s Varindera Const. Ltd., stating that statutory mandates regarding limitation cannot be flouted and the maximum prescribed period, including discretionary extensions, cannot be further extended. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable due to the inordinate and statutorily impermissible delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's grounds for delay in filing the appeal constitute a 'sufficient cause' under Section 107(4) of the HGST Act, 2017, warranting condonation? 2. Whether the period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the HGST Act, 2017, can be extended beyond the maximum prescribed period, including the additional one month for sufficient cause? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the mental distress from his mother's death and business losses due to the Covid-19 pandemic were valid reasons for the delay. They relied on the Calcutta High Court's decision in S.K. Chakraborty & Sons Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2024), which held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is not excluded by Section 107 of the HGST Act, 2017, allowing for extension of the appeal period. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that the delay of 928 days was excessive. They pointed out that Section 107(4) of the HGST Act, 2017, allows for a maximum of one additional month for sufficient cause, beyond the initial three months. They also highlighted that the Calcutta High Court judgment cited by the petitioner was under challenge before the Supreme Court and its operation had been stayed.