Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2023 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 577 - HC - GSTRejection of appeal on the ground of time limitation - sufficient cause for delay or not - petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the statutory period of limitation or not - HELD THAT:- The word “sufficient cause” as appearing in Section 107(4) of CGST Act, 2017 for the purpose of seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal) has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the light of Section 5 of Limitation Act relating to Land Acquisition Matter would guide the Court in deciding the point. In COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VERSUS MST. KATIJI AND OTHERS [1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. While considering the application for condonation of delay, it is not the length of the delay, but cause for delay which would be paramount consideration. If the cause shown as indicated under Section 107(4) of the act, such delay deserves to be condoned irrespective of the length of the delay. It does not mean that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) can condone the delay beyond the condonable period that is one month after expiry of three months after statutory period of three months. As seen from the order impugned, the learned Commissioner opined that the reasons are not convincing. Pertinent to say that, the learned Commissioner never denied about freezing of bank account of the petitioner and about issuing of notices to the purchasers who are yet to pay consideration to the petitioner - In this context it is necessary to refer Section 107 (6) which is vivid on the point of deposit of 10% of the disputed tax which is mandatory at the time of filing of the appeal. When the bank account of the petitioner is freezed by the authorities, it is a relevant fact to consider the delay since the pre-deposit of 10% disputed tax at the time of filing of the appeal is mandatory. The view taken by the learned Commissioner appears to be forcing the horse to run after tying the legs. The right of appeal which is created under statute is a substantive right of the party that cannot be denied by taking pedantic view. The impugned order passed by respondent No. 2 dated 03.06.2023 is set aside - petition allowed.
|