GK Housing & Developers Private Ltd Vs State of Punjab And Others (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
In a significant ruling, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has set aside orders that rejected a Goods and Services Tax (GST) appeal filed by GK Housing & Developers Private Ltd. The High Court emphasized that an appeal cannot be dismissed solely on the grounds of a four-month delay without considering the reasons for the delay or the merits of the case. The court has directed the Appellate Authority to conduct a fresh adjudication.
The petitioner, GK Housing & Developers, had filed an appeal challenging an order, along with an application to condone a four-month delay. However, the Appellate Authority rejected this application, citing that the appeal was time-barred and that the GST Act contained no provision for condoning delays beyond four months. A subsequent review application was also dismissed on maintainability grounds.
The High Court, in its decision, highlighted the necessity for the Appellate Authority to adopt a pragmatic approach rather than a pedantic one. It noted that it was “incumbent upon the Appellate Authority to have, at the least considered the reasons, projected that caused the delay and examined the sufficiency thereof, likewise was it imperative for it to view the merits of the appeal, rather than axing it on account of delay alone, notably it being a substantive right.”
The court referred to several judicial precedents to support its stance. It cited Living Media India Ltd (2012) 3 SCC 563, where the Supreme Court observed that “a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice” in matters of delay condonation, especially when there is no gross negligence or deliberate inaction. Another precedent, Mahadeo Vithoba Nikam vs. Gajanan Pandurang Kulkarni (1998) 9 SCC 716, saw an appeal remanded for a fresh decision on merits, even though it was filed after a significant delay, emphasizing that the Appellate Authority should consider the merits despite the delay.
Furthermore, the High Court referenced its own previous ruling in Arvind Gupta vs. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue State Taxes (WPA-2904-2023 dated January 4, 2024). In that case, the High Court had set aside an Appellate Authority’s rejection of an appeal, which was based on the absence of a specific GST Act provision for condoning delays beyond four months, and directed a decision on merits.
Considering the specific facts and circumstances, the Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside the impugned orders dated July 17, 2024, and September 18, 2024. The matter has been remitted back to the Appellate Authority, which is now mandated to decide the appeal afresh, in accordance with law, within a period of four months, ensuring the petitioner is granted an opportunity of hearing. This ruling underscores the principle that the cause of justice should be prioritized over technical considerations.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
1. Prayer made in the present petition for quashing the orders dated 04.01.2024, 17.07.2024 and 18.09.2024 (Annexures P4 to P P6, respectively).
2. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had filed an appeal challenging the order, along with application for condonation of delay of 4months, however, the Appellate Authority has rejected the same ground of it being time barred without referring to the same or dealing with the merits of the case, review whereof was also dismissed on maintainability
3. A worthwhile reference can be made to Living Media India Ltd(2012) 3 SCC 563, wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court observed that, “Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice…”
4. In Mahadeo Vithoba Nikam vs. Gajanan Pandurang Kulkarni (1998) 9 SCC 716, the appeal was allowed setting aside all the orders of the appellate and revisional authority as also the High Court and the matter was remanded for fresh decision on merits after hearing the parties and observed that even though the appellant was not present before the Additional Tehsildar and filed the appeal against the order after a significant delay, the Appellate Authority was to consider the same on merits but it had been dismissed solely on the basis of delay.
5. The Appellate Authority in the case of Arvind Gupta vs. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue State Taxes WPA-2904-2023 dated 04.01.2024, had rejected the appeal on the ground of there being no provision under the GST Act for condoning the delay beyond four months, which was set aside by the High Court and it was directed to decide the same on merits.
6. It was incumbent upon the Appellate Authority to have, at the least considered the reasons, projected that caused the delay and examined the sufficiency thereof, likewise was it imperative for it to view the merits of the appeal, rather than axing it on account of delay alone, notably it being a substantive right. Even for this Court to have a holistic view, it would have been better that there was an application of mind by an authority higher than the one which was appealed against, reflected through an order. Moreso, the petitioner would stand to gain nothing by delaying filing it.
7. It is trite that the cause of justice deserves to be preferred, when pitted against technical considerations. As such, a pragmatic approach instead of pedantic must be adopted.
8. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders dated 17.07.2024 and 18.09.2024 (Annexures P5 & P6, respectively) are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority, for deciding it afresh, in accordance with law, within a period of four months, granting to the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
9. The present petition is disposed of accordingly.
10. Photocopy of this order be placed on the connected file.
