M/S Mamata Medical Store vs. Union Of INDIA And 3 Others

Held

The Court held that the appellate authority erred in rejecting the appeal solely on the ground of limitation without considering the genuine reasons for the delay. The Court noted that the petitioner had taken the ground of the husband's critical illness and subsequent death in the memo of appeal, which hampered the petitioner's ability to file the appeal within the statutory period. The Court acknowledged the submission from the learned Standing Counsel that the State be compensated. Consequently, the Court set aside the order dated December 6, 2025, passed by the Appellate Authority, condoned the delay in filing the appeal, and remitted the matter back to the Appellate Authority to pass a fresh order on merits within three months. The petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 5,000/- by October 30, 2026, as a condition for availing the benefit of the order. The Court clarified that this decision was not an expression on the merits of the appeal, which would be decided by the Appellate Authority.

Facts

The writ petitioner, M/s Mamata Medical Store, a registered firm under GST, failed to file its GSTR-3B return for April 2024-25 within the stipulated time due to the serious illness and subsequent death of the petitioner's husband on July 27, 2024. The petitioner firm was also closed down on January 27, 2026, and registration cancellation proceedings were initiated on February 21, 2026. An order was passed under Section 125 read with Section 127 of the GST Act. The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority with a delay of over three months and three days. This appeal was rejected by the appellate authority on December 6, 2025, on the grounds of being time-barred, leading to the present writ petition challenging both the original order and the appellate order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in rejecting the appeal solely on the ground of limitation, without considering the genuine reasons for the delay, specifically the critical illness and death of the petitioner's husband, which hindered the petitioner's ability to file the appeal within the statutory period, thereby violating the principles of natural justice? (Section 107(1) of the GST Act). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that there were genuine grounds for the delay in filing the appeal, namely the critical illness and subsequent death of the petitioner's husband, which prevented the petitioner, a woman managing the firm, from attending to business matters. This ground was taken in the memo of appeal but was not considered by the appellate authority, which rejected the appeal as time-barred, citing the limitation period under Section 107(1) of the Act. The petitioner offered to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- and any further cost quantified by the Court. Revenue's arguments: The learned Standing Counsel for the revenue submitted that while diligence is expected from an appellant, merits should not be throttled solely due to delay. The State should be compensated in terms of money, and the matter should be directed to be heard afresh by the appellate authority.