M/S Bansal Sanitary Store vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that the merits of the matter should not be throttled by technicalities, particularly when the delay was adequately explained by medical ailments supported by certificates. The Court found the appellate order dated September 26, 2024, to be bereft of reasons, especially considering the minimal delay of just over five days. The Court set aside the order rejecting the delay condonation application and the appeal. The appeal was restored to its number, the delay in filing was condoned, and the appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal by December 31, 2026. The Court explicitly stated that it had not entered into the merits of the matter.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Bansal Sanitary Store, a partnership firm registered for GST, engaged in trading tiles, purchased 1376 boxes of Ceramic Vitrified Tiles from M/s Somani Ceramics Limited, Gujarat. The goods were intercepted, and a detention order was passed on June 3, 2023, under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order on October 7, 2023, along with a delay condonation application. The appellate authority, on September 26, 2024, rejected the delay condonation application and consequently the appeal, citing the delay beyond the permissible period of 120 days.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority erred in rejecting the delay condonation application solely on the ground of exceeding the 120-day limit, despite the petitioner explaining the delay due to medical ailments supported by certificates, and the delay being only five days beyond the limit, thereby violating principles of natural justice and the spirit of Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the appellate authority passed a cyclostyle order, failing to consider the specific grounds of medical ailments and appended medical certificates. They argued that the delay of only five days beyond 120 days should have been condoned, especially when the submitted certificates were not challenged as fictitious or forced. Revenue's arguments: The Standing Counsel for the State argued that while an appeal right exists, the petitioner, as the appellant, filed beyond the delay period. They reiterated that the appellate authority does not possess the power to condone delay beyond 120 days.