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

Held

The Court held that the appellate orders rejecting the appeals as time-barred were to be set aside. The delay in filing the appeals was condoned. The Court reasoned that while the petitioner had to be diligent, merits should not be completely disregarded due to delay, especially when genuine grounds like critical illness and death of a family member were cited. The Court acknowledged the Standing Counsel's submission that the State could be compensated. Consequently, the matters were remitted back to the Appellate Authority to pass fresh orders on merits within a period of three months. The Court clarified that this decision was not an expression on the merits of the case, which would be decided by the Appellate Authority. The petitioners were directed to deposit Rs. 5,000/- each (totaling Rs. 20,000/-) by October 30, 2026, as a condition for availing the benefit of the order. The order was passed upon concession of the parties.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s Mamata Medical Store, are registered firms under the GST Act. They failed to file their GSTR-3B returns for February 2024-25 within the statutory period due to the critical illness and subsequent death of the petitioner's husband. Consequently, orders were passed against them under Section 125 read with Section 127 of the GST Act. The petitioners preferred appeals before the appellate authority, but these were filed with a significant delay (over 3 months and 3 days in one case). The appellate authority rejected these appeals as time-barred, citing that it lacked the power to condone delay beyond three months plus a grace period of one month under Section 107(1) of the Act. The petitioners then filed writ petitions before the High Court challenging both the original orders and the appellate orders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, can interfere with the appellate authority's order rejecting appeals as time-barred, particularly when the delay was allegedly due to genuine reasons like critical illness and death of a family member, and if Section 107(1) of the GST Act, which limits condonation of delay, is absolute in such circumstances? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that there were genuine grounds for the delay in filing the appeals, specifically the critical illness and subsequent death of the husband of the proprietor, Mamta Johri. They argued that this ground was taken in the memo of appeal but was not considered by the appellate authority. They further submitted that the appellate authority erred in holding that it did not possess the power to condone the delay beyond the period stipulated in Section 107(1) of the Act. The petitioners offered to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- per case. Revenue's arguments: The Standing Counsel for the revenue submitted that while an appellant must be diligent, merits should not be throttled solely on the ground of delay. He suggested that the State could be compensated in terms of money and the matter could be directed to be heard afresh by the appellate authority.