M/S Mahesh Prasad Singh vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Mahesh Prasad Singh, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 10.03.2022 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). This order rejected the petitioner's appeal solely on the grounds of limitation. The appeal was filed against an order dated 16.02.2018, which the petitioner received on 24.02.2018. The appeal was filed on 08.02.2022. The petitioner also sought to set aside a recovery order dated 12.01.2022, directing employers to deduct Rs. 1,71,73,864/- from payments due to the petitioner. The petitioner had previously approached the High Court in CWJC No. 24121 of 2018, where they were allowed to avail the alternative statutory remedy. Subsequent to this, the petitioner suffered an accident and was bedridden for approximately two and a half years, also contracting COVID-19.

Held

The Court held that the delay in preferring the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have been condoned. The reasoning was based on the explanation furnished by the petitioner, which detailed an accident that led to the petitioner being bedridden for almost two and a half years, compounded by suffering from COVID-19. The Court also noted that it had been passing orders condoning delays in preferring appeals during the COVID-19 pandemic, based on orders from the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 11.03.2022, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of limitation. The Court directed the petitioner to appear before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 15.11.2022, who was then instructed to decide the appeal on its merits. The Court also addressed a Civil Review Petition (C.Rev. 340 of 2019), which was in the nature of seeking an extension of limitation, and allowed the prayer, extending the period for preferring the appeal by four weeks from the date of the order. The ratio decidendi is that substantial reasons, such as severe personal illness and accidents, coupled with the prevailing circumstances of pandemic-related delays, warrant condonation of delay in filing statutory appeals to ensure adjudication on merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) should be condoned, considering the explanation provided by the petitioner, and if the impugned order rejecting the appeal on limitation grounds is sustainable. (This issue turns on the principles of condonation of delay and the interpretation of relevant procedural provisions governing appeals under GST law). Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that the delay was attributable to a severe accident rendering them bedridden for an extended period and a subsequent COVID-19 infection. Further contended that the High Court had previously allowed them to pursue the statutory remedy, and that the pandemic period also saw delays being condoned by courts. Relied on the general principles of justice and equity, and possibly Supreme Court orders regarding pandemic-related delays. Revenue/State: No specific arguments recorded for the revenue/state on the issue of limitation in the provided text.