Manzoor Ahmad Bhat vs. Union Territory Of J And K And Others (Finance)

Facts

The petitioner, Manzoor Ahmad Bhat, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority (respondent No. 2) and an earlier order dated 20.08.2024 passed by the State Tax Circle Baramulla-III (respondent No. 3). The Appellate Authority had rejected the petitioner's appeal on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner sought condonation of a delay of 317 days in filing the appeal, citing his father's serious medical illness during August 2024 and a lack of formal intimation of the impugned order. The petitioner claimed sole responsibility for his father's treatment and travel. The revenue contended that the order was served through the GST Portal and was within the petitioner's knowledge. The medical records provided pertained to an earlier period.

Held

The Court held that the Appellate Authority cannot entertain an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, if it is filed beyond four months from the date of communication of the order to the aggrieved person. However, in exceptional and extraordinary cases, the High Court, in its equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, may condone the delay and direct the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on merits. Upon examining the petitioner's application for condonation of delay, the Court found that the petitioner's father's ailment was not of a nature that would have completely disabled the petitioner from filing the appeal in time. The medical records provided were for a period prior to the relevant delay. Therefore, the cause shown did not constitute "exceptional circumstances" to invoke Article 226 for condoning the delay. The Court found the issue squarely covered by its previous judgment in Jatinder Singh Vs. Union Territory of J&K and Ors. The petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority has the power to entertain an appeal beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act)? 2. Whether the petitioner has made out a case of exceptional and extraordinary nature warranting the invocation of the High Court's extraordinary equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to condone the delay in filing the appeal? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that his father's serious medical condition and his sole responsibility for his treatment prevented him from filing the appeal within the stipulated time. He also claimed a lack of formal intimation of the order. Revenue's arguments: The revenue contended that the impugned order was served through the GST Portal, making it known to the petitioner. The medical records submitted did not support the claim of a disabling illness during the relevant period.