Sachin Kumar Shastri vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The High Court held that the Appellate Authority had wrongly dismissed the petitioner's appeal on the ground of delay. The Court found merit in the petitioner's submission that the delay was only 6 days, considering the statutory period of 90 days and the additional 30 days that the Appellate Authority has the power to condone. The Court also took into account the exceptional circumstances of the petitioner's grandmother's illness and death, which occurred within the period of limitation. Relying on precedents from other High Courts, the Court opined that in special circumstances, delay can be condoned under Article 226 of the Constitution. Given that the entire tax amount had been recovered, the Court condoned the delay, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority for a decision on merits. The Court also directed the release of the petitioner's bank account.

Facts

The petitioner, Sachin Kumar Shastri, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 31.1.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority, which dismissed his appeal on the grounds of delay. The petitioner contended that the appeal was filed on 18.6.2024, and the delay was caused by the serious illness and subsequent death of his grandmother on 29.5.2024. He argued that the Appellate Authority incorrectly calculated the delay as 126 days, when it was only 6 days, considering the statutory 90-day period and an additional 30 days that the authority could condone. The petitioner also highlighted that the entire tax amount of Rs. 22,36,434/- had already been recovered from him.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal on the ground of delay, considering the circumstances presented and the provisions for condonation of delay under the GST Act and Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the delay was justifiable due to the critical illness and demise of his grandmother. He contended that the Appellate Authority miscalculated the delay, and that the period of delay was within the condonable limit. He relied on decisions from the High Courts of Punjab & Haryana, Rajasthan, and Madras, which held that High Courts can condone delay in special circumstances under Article 226. The petitioner also pointed out that the entire tax amount had been recovered, and his bank account should be released. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent/State.