Campus Activewear Limited vs. Commissioner State Goods And Service Tax Commissionerate

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to file their appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the GST Act within one week from the date of receiving a certified copy of the order. Crucially, the Court directed the learned appellate authority to consider the question of delay in filing the appeal liberally. This direction was to be given in light of the judgment dated 02.08.2024 passed by this Court in Special Appeal No. 238 of 2023 (M/s Thukral Steel Engineers vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Goods and Service Tax & Another). The Court did not decide on the merits of the penalty order itself, focusing solely on facilitating the appeal process.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Campus Activewear Limited, challenged an order dated 26.09.2023 passed by the Commissioner, State Goods and Service Tax, imposing a penalty of Rs. 8,32,612/- for alleged gross violation of Section 129(III) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner intended to file an appeal under Section 107 of the Act but was delayed by 270 days due to ongoing litigation before this Court in SPA No. 238 of 2024 (M/s Thukral Steel Engineers vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Goods and Service Tax & Another). The petitioner sought the Court's direction for the appellate authority to consider the delay liberally.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, should direct the appellate authority to consider the delay in filing an appeal liberally, given the circumstances preventing timely filing? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that due to litigation before this Court, they were unable to file their appeal within the prescribed period. Now that the avenue for appeal is open, they are ready to file but require the appellate authority to condone the delay of 270 days. They sought the Court's interference to direct the appellate authority to deal with the issue of limitation liberally, referencing a previous judgment of this Court in Special Appeal No. 238 of 2023. Respondents' Contention: The learned counsel for the respondent State had no objection to the petitioner's submission.