M/S Perfect Stoneware Pipes Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner

Held

The Court held that the Appellate Authority correctly dismissed the petitioner's appeal as time-barred. The Court noted that under Section 107(1) of the M.P. GST Act, 2017, the limitation period for filing an appeal is three months from the date of communication of the decision or order. Section 107(4) grants the Appellate Authority the power to condone a delay of a maximum of one month. The Court found that even with the reasons provided by the petitioner, including the death of an employee and internal transitions, the delay extended beyond the permissible limit of three months plus one month. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner did not provide a satisfactory explanation for not responding to the two DRC-01 notices issued by the State Tax Officer. The Court concluded that the petitioner had knowledge of the order passed by the Tax Assessment Officer and, therefore, no indulgence was warranted in the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Perfect Stoneware Pipes Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 15.10.2025 passed by the Joint Commissioner, which dismissed their appeal as time-barred. The original assessment order was passed by the State Tax Officer, Jabalpur, on 05.02.2025 under Section 74(1) of the M.P. GST Act, 2017, imposing a demand of Rs. 14,78,076/-. The petitioner claimed they were unaware of this order until their bank account was attached. They filed an appeal on 14.08.2025, seeking condonation of delay. The Appellate Authority issued a show-cause notice regarding the delay. The petitioner attributed the delay to internal transitions, staff changes, staff death, and lack of service of the original order. The department contended that the petitioner had generated two e-way bills against one invoice and failed to reply to DRC-01 notices.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal as time-barred, considering the explanation for the delay provided by the petitioner, and whether the delay can be condoned beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 107(4) of the M.P. GST Act, 2017? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Section 107(1) and 107(4) of the M.P. GST Act, 2017). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal was unintentional and due to internal transitions, staff changes, the death of a key accountant, and crucially, non-service of the original order. They contended that they only became aware of the order upon provisional attachment of their bank account, causing severe hardship. They sought condonation of delay in the interest of equity and justice. Revenue's arguments: The State argued that the petitioner had generated two e-way bills against a single invoice, which is impermissible. They also contended that the petitioner failed to submit a reply to the DRC-01 notices issued twice, and that the Appellate Authority's power to condone delay is limited to one month beyond the three-month period prescribed under Section 107(1), making any further condonation impermissible. They argued that the petitioner had knowledge of the order and no indulgence should be shown.