Kns Constructions vs. Deputy Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had demonstrated a reasonable cause for the delay of 349 days in filing the appeal before the second respondent. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's ill-health, which was accepted as a valid ground for the delay. Consequently, the Court decided to condone the delay. The order of the appellate authority (second respondent) rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation was set aside. The Court directed the second respondent to take up the appeal on merits and dispose of it in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This principle, that ill-health can constitute a reasonable cause for condoning delay in filing appeals, forms the ratio decidendi. The Court did not decide on the merits of the original assessment order.

Facts

The petitioner, KNS Constructions, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 31.12.2024 passed by the second respondent (Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals)). The petitioner, engaged in real estate business, failed to file an appeal against an assessment order passed by the first respondent (Deputy Commissioner of GST & Central Excise) due to ill-health, leading to a delay of 349 days. The appeal was subsequently rejected by the second respondent solely on the grounds of this delay. The petitioner sought to quash this rejection order, arguing that the delay was unintentional and caused by their ill-health.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court has the power to condone a delay of 349 days in filing an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994, when the delay is attributed to the petitioner's ill-health? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to their ill-health, which prevented them from being aware of the assessment order and filing the appeal promptly. They contended that this constituted a sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay. Respondents' Contention: The respondents, through their counsel, fairly submitted that if the Court found sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay, appropriate orders could be passed. They did not contest the petitioner's claim of ill-health as a cause for delay.