Dee Ess Construction Co Th Arun Sabharwal vs. Ut Of J Andk Th Principal Secretary TO Government Finance Department, Jammu And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Dee Ess Construction Co., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 11.10.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner State Taxes (Appeal-Jammu). The Appellate Authority dismissed the petitioner's appeal, filed under Section 107 of the J&K SGST Act, 2017, as being barred by limitation. The petitioner sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The grounds for condonation included the petitioner's age (62 years), health issues (diabetes and high blood pressure), illiteracy regarding online processes, and reliance on an accountant who allegedly failed to inform the petitioner of notices. The petitioner also cited a Delhi High Court case, G.V.Infosutions Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT, to support their claim of bona fide mistake.

Held

The Court held that the Appellate Authority cannot entertain an appeal filed beyond four months from the date of communication of the order, as per Section 107(4) of the SGST Act, 2017. This answered question (i) in favor of the revenue. Regarding question (ii), the Court held that while periods of limitation are procedural, the prohibition in Section 107(4) does not bar the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 to condone delay if substantial justice is to be rendered and the case is of an extraordinary and exceptional nature. However, the Court found that the petitioner's reasons for delay (age, health, illiteracy, accountant's failure) did not constitute an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance warranting intervention. Therefore, the Appellate Authority was correct in dismissing the application for condonation of delay. The petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority under Sub-Section (4) of Section 107 of the SGST Act, 2017, is competent to condone the delay in filing an appeal beyond one month after the expiry of the three-month period prescribed under Sub-Section (1) of Section 107. The petitioner argued that the Appellate Authority has the power to condone delay. The revenue contended that the Appellate Authority's power to condone delay is limited. 2. Even if the Appellate Authority lacks the power to condone delay beyond thirty days, can this Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, direct such condonation if a case of exceptional nature is made out or if the interest of justice warrants it? The petitioner argued for intervention by the High Court in exceptional circumstances. The revenue did not record specific arguments on this point, but the Court's decision implies a reliance on the statutory limitations.