Case Law Details
Steel Kart Vs State of Haryana and Others (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
In the case of Steel Kart Vs State of Haryana and Others (Punjab and Haryana High Court), the petitioner, Steel Kart, contested the delay in filing an appeal against a demand order under Section 73 of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that it was not notified of the order, which led to their delay in filing the appeal. The demand, amounting to ₹224,59,211, was not uploaded to the portal, and the petitioner only became aware of it later. Upon receiving knowledge of the order, the petitioner promptly filed the appeal, requesting that the delay not be penalized.
The Court considered the provision under Section 107 and Section 35(1) of the Haryana GST Act, which allows appeals to be filed within thirty days and provides for a delay of up to thirty days. However, the Court ruled that these provisions are directory rather than mandatory. It further clarified that if a party is unable to file an appeal due to circumstances beyond its control—such as not being informed of the order—the appeal should be considered from the date of knowledge, not the date the order was passed. Consequently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the writ petition, directing the appellate authority to hear the appeal on merits without considering the delay or limitation period. All related applications were disposed of in favor of the petitioner.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
1. Notice of motion.
2. Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already paid the pre-deposit for hearing of the Appeal. It is stated that the order passed under Section 73 of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act’) was never conveyed to the petitioner and was not uploaded on the regular portal resulting in the petitioner having no knowledge of passing of the order creating the demand of 224,59,211/-. The petitioner has preferred the Appeal immediately on coming to know about the order and therefore, the delay ought not be taken into consideration.
4. While the provision under Section 107 and 35(1) of the Act provides for filing an Appeal within a period of thirty days, and further condoning of delay upto thirty days, we are of the view that the provision relating to filing of an Appeal in a particular period is essentially a directory provision and not a mandatory provision, although this Court has held that the provisions under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would have no application in cases where the period of condonation of delay has been itself mentioned in the Act. This Court would not be prevented from condoning such delay and in the circumstances where the concerned party is prevented from filing Appeal beyond power or control.
5. In the present case, since the order passed itself was not brought to the knowledge of the petitioner herein, the period as prescribed under Section 35(1) of the Act has to be read from the date of knowledge and nor from the date of passing of the order alone.
6. We accordingly, allow this Writ Petition and direct the appellate authority to consider the Appeal of the petitioner on merits without going into the question of delay/limitation.
7. Writ Petition stands allowed.
8. All pending applications filed in this case shall stand disposed of accordingly.
Author Bio
