M/S Navayuga Engineering Company LTD Th Sridhar Das vs. Ut Of J And K Th Additional Chief Secretary TO Government Finance Department, Jammu And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Navayuga Engineering Company Limited, initially challenged an order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the State Tax Officer (STO) by filing a writ petition (WP(C) No. 663/2025). This Court, vide order dated 11.04.2025, directed the STO to consider the petitioner's reply and pass orders, while also directing that the time spent in pursuing the writ petition be excluded from the limitation period for any appeal. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Dy. Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeals-1) along with a condonation of delay application. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal and the application on 19.01.2026, holding it to be time-barred.

Held

The Court held that the Dy. Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeals-1) erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal on hyper-technical grounds. The Court found that the delay of 15 days was marginal and the grounds for condonation were neither imaginary nor fanciful. The appellate authority's insistence that the appeal should have been filed by 07.05.2025 was deemed logically flawed and legally unsustainable, as it effectively curtailed the statutory period granted to the petitioner. The Court reasoned that Section 107(4) of the Act explicitly permits condonation of delay within an extended one-month window if sufficient cause is shown. Therefore, the Court set aside the order dated 19.01.2026, condoned the delay in filing the appeal, and remitted the matter back to the appellate authority for adjudication on merits. The ratio decidendi is that appellate authorities should not adopt a hyper-technical approach to dismiss appeals at the threshold when a marginal delay is explained and falls within the condonable period as per statutory provisions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Dy. Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeals-1) erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal as time-barred, despite the delay being marginal (15 days) and adequately explained, contrary to the provisions of Section 107(4) of the J&K SGST/CGST Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that the original limitation period expired on 16.04.2025. After excluding 26 days spent in pursuing the writ petition before this Court, the last date for filing the appeal was extended to 12.05.2025. The appeal was filed on 28.05.2025, resulting in a delay of only 15 days. The petitioner contended that this delay was fully explained, not deliberate, and should have been condoned under Section 107(4) of the Act, which allows condonation for up to one month. The petitioner relied on the order of this Court dated 11.04.2025 for exclusion of time. The respondents, through their counsel, stated that they would not file a response due to the legal point involved and requested the matter be considered on record.