Barkat Ali vs. UOI And Others

Held

The Court held that the essence of the previous High Court order was to proceed de novo for passing an appropriate, reasoned, and speaking order, which necessarily implied a decision on merits. Rejecting the appeal solely on the ground of delay, after a de novo hearing and in compliance with the remand order, would render the High Court's previous direction ineffective. The Court noted that the delay was an admitted fact and the Appellate Authority's previous rejection was based on this admitted fact. The Court set aside the impugned orders dated March 4, 2025, and December 5, 2025. The Appellate Authority was directed to hear the appeal de novo, decide it on merits, ignoring the delay in filing, and pass a speaking and reasoned order after affording due opportunity of hearing to all parties. The decision was to be made expeditiously, latest by June 30, 2026.

Facts

The petitioner, Barkat Ali, challenged the cancellation of his GST registration. A show cause notice was issued on February 6, 2024, and the registration was cancelled by the Superintendent, Chamba Circle, on March 19, 2024. The petitioner filed an appeal on January 6, 2025, which was 171 days beyond the 30-day limitation period. This appeal was registered on March 4, 2025, and rejected on the same day due to the delay. The petitioner filed a previous writ petition (CWP No.11247 of 2025) challenging this rejection, which was decided on November 12, 2025. The High Court remanded the matter back to the Appellate Authority with directions to proceed de novo, hear the petitioner, and pass a reasoned order by January 4, 2026. Despite a hearing, the Appellate Authority again rejected the appeal as time-barred on December 5, 2025, leading to the present petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority, after a remand order from the High Court directing it to proceed de novo and pass a reasoned order, can reject the appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the merits, when the delay was an admitted fact at the time of the initial rejection? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the High Court's previous order clearly mandated a decision on merits after a de novo hearing. The Appellate Authority's rejection on the ground of delay, despite the remand, defeats the purpose of the High Court's order. The petitioner contended that the Appellate Authority's hesitation stemmed from a misunderstanding of whether the previous order implicitly condoned the delay. Respondents' contention: The respondents submitted that the Appellate Authority lacks the power to condone delay beyond the initial 30-day period. They suggested that the absence of an explicit mention of delay condonation in the previous High Court order might have caused the Appellate Authority to hesitate in deciding on merits.