Bijit Hazarika Vs State of Assam and 3 Ors. (Gauhati High Court)
Summary : The Gauhati High Court, in Bijit Hazarika Vs State of Assam and 3 Ors., considered whether a GST appeal filed approximately 40 days beyond the prescribed limitation period deserved consideration on merits when the delay arose from the taxpayer’s involvement in his daughter’s medical treatment. The petitioner, a proprietor engaged in executing civil contracts and supplying materials, was registered under the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Guwahati-D, issued a show-cause notice dated 09.06.2025 under Section 73 of the GST legislation. Subsequently, an order-in-original dated 01.11.2025 determined a liability of ₹55,78,250.80 for Financial Year 2023-24. The petitioner explained that his daughter was suffering from RP-29 (Retinitis Pigmentosa), a rare inherited degenerative eye disorder affecting the retina, and was undergoing treatment at L.V. Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad. His involvement in arranging and pursuing her treatment prevented him from filing the statutory appeal within three months from communication of the order.
The petitioner filed the appeal, acknowledged on 08.05.2026, after making a pre-deposit of ₹2,34,666. However, the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals), Guwahati, dismissed the appeal on 08.05.2026, holding that it was delayed by approximately 40 days and that the Appellate Authority lacked the power to condone the delay. The petitioner approached the High Court through a writ petition filed on 09.07.2026. His counsel submitted that the delay was neither deliberate nor attributable to negligence but resulted from circumstances beyond his control. The medical records and surrounding circumstances, according to the petitioner, established sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the statutory period. The controversy therefore concerned whether the rejection of the appeal solely on limitation grounds should stand despite the explanation furnished by the petitioner.
After examining the materials on record and hearing the parties, Justice Devashis Baruah held that the petitioner had established sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The Court expressly found that there was neither negligence nor wilful default on the petitioner’s part in failing to file the appeal within the prescribed period. It further observed that permitting the appeal to be heard on merits would cause no substantial prejudice or inconvenience to the respondents. Considering these circumstances, the Court concluded that interference with the appellate rejection order was warranted in the interest of justice. The judgment thus granted relief on the particular medical circumstances established before the Court, without adjudicating the correctness of the underlying GST demand.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside and quashed the appellate order dated 08.05.2026 rejecting the appeal on limitation grounds. The Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals), Guwahati, was directed to decide Appeal Reference No. ZD1805260065981 on its merits. Both parties were directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on 27.11.2026, following which the authority was required to fix a hearing date and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. No costs were awarded. The ruling illustrates the High Court’s willingness, on the facts of the particular case, to intervene where compelling medical circumstances satisfactorily explain a delay in pursuing a GST appellate remedy. It does not amount to a general extension of the statutory limitation period or a determination of the petitioner’s substantive tax liability.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Heard Mr. D. Gogoi, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Additional Advocate General appears on behalf of the Finance and Taxation Department and Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned CGC appears on behalf of the respondent No. 5.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 01.11.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority thereby rejecting the petitioner’s Appeal on the ground of limitation.
3. The petitioner herein is engaged in the business of execution of civil contracts and supply of materials on a contractual basis. The petitioner carries on his business through his proprietorship firm under the name and style of “Bijit Hazarika”. The petitioner is registered under the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, “the Act of 2017”) and has been issued a registration number being 18ADIPH6111L3ZG.
4. On 09.06.2025, a show-cause notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Guwahati-D under Section 73 of the Act of 2017. Subsequent thereto, an order-in-original was passed on 01.11.2025 for the Financial Year 2023–24, whereby the petitioner was held liable to pay an amount of Rs.55,78,250.80p.
5. It is the further case of the petitioner that on account of his daughter suffering from RP-29 (Retinitis Pigmentosa), a rare inherited degenerative eye disorder affecting the retina and undergoing treatment at L.V. Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, the petitioner was preoccupied with the medical treatment of his daughter. Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not file the Appeal within the prescribed period of 3 (three) months from the date on which the decision or order was communicated to him.
6. The petitioner filed the Appeal, which was acknowledged on 08.05.2026 and had also submitted the pre-deposit of Rs. 2,34,666/-. The said Appeal was dismissed vide order dated 08.05.2026 on the ground that the Appeal was delayed by approximately 40 days and the learned Appellate Authority did not have the power to condone the delay. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition was filed before this Court on 09.07.2026.
7. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 25.08.2026 issued notice.
8. This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.
9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner categorically submitted that the materials on record clearly show that at the relevant point of time after the order-in-original was passed on 01.11.2025, the petitioner was occupied in taking effective steps for the medical treatment of his daughter, who was suffering from a rare inherited degenerative eye disorder affecting the retina. This constituted sufficient cause for not presenting the Appeal within the period of limitation. The delay of approximately 40 days in preferring the Appeal was neither willful nor deliberate, but was compelled by circumstances beyond his control.
10. This Court, having given an anxious consideration to the matter and after perusing the materials on record, is of the opinion that the petitioner has been able to make out a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in preferring the Appeal. There was neither any negligence nor any willful default on the part of the petitioner in not preferring the Appeal within the statutory period of limitation.
11. It is also the opinion of this Court that if the Appeal filed by the petitioner is permitted to be heard on merits, no substantial prejudice or inconvenience would be caused to the respondents.
12. Considering the above, it is the opinion of this Court that it would be in the interest of justice to interfere with the impugned order dated 08.05.2026 passed by the Appellate Authority, i.e., the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals), Guwahati and direct the Appellate Authority to hear and decide the Appeal on merits.
13. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions:
(i) The impugned order dated 08.05.2026 passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals), Guwahati rejecting the Appeal on the ground of limitation is hereby set aside and quashed.
(ii) The Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals), Guwahati is directed to decide the Appeal bearing Reference No. ZD1805260065981 on its merits.
(iii) Taking into account that the petitioner as well as the respondents are duly represented, the parties are directed to appear before the learned Appellate Authority, i.e., the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals), Guwahati on 27.11.2026.
(iv) The learned Appellate Authority shall thereupon fix a date for hearing of the Appeal on merits and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
(v) There shall be no order as to costs.
