HC Condoned 56-Day Delay in Filing GST Appeal Due to Petitioner’s Ill-Health Despite Exceeding Condonable Period

Gaddipati Venkateswara Rao Vs Additional Commissioner (ST) (Appeals) (Andhra Pradesh High Court)

The case of Gaddipati Venkateswara Rao vs Additional Commissioner (ST) revolves around the appeal filed against Assessment Order No. AD370323031615 dated 27.05.2023. The petitioner contested the rejection of their appeal on grounds of delay, citing health reasons for the delay beyond the condonable period.

Gaddipati Venkateswara Rao filed an appeal challenging the Assessment Order issued by the 2nd respondent, which was rejected by the Additional Commissioner/1st respondent citing a delay of 56 days beyond the condonable period. The petitioner, represented by counsel, argued that the delay was due to the petitioner’s medical condition, specifically a back injury sustained during the period from 05.08.2023 to 30.09.2023.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court considered the submissions and noted that while there was a procedural delay, the GST Appellate Tribunal had not been constituted at the time, allowing the writ petition to be entertained by the Court. The petitioner relied on precedents from the Telangana High Court regarding the condonation of delay in similar circumstances, emphasizing that procedural fairness should prevail in such cases.

Referring to the case law cited, the High Court observed that in cases where delays were due to valid reasons beyond the control of the appellant, courts have upheld the principle of condoning delays to ensure justice. The Court specifically referenced the approach in Narayanapet Municipality vs Superintendent of Central Tax and other similar cases where delays were condoned based on medical or other genuine grounds affecting the appellant’s ability to comply with timelines.

In applying these principles, the High Court allowed the writ petition, condoning the entire delay in filing the appeal on the condition that the petitioner deposit costs of Rs. 20,000 within one week. Upon payment, the appellate authority was directed to restore the appeal and hear the matter on its merits, ensuring due process and fairness in adjudication.

The judgment in Gaddipati Venkateswara Rao vs Additional Commissioner (ST) underscores the importance of procedural fairness and judicial discretion in condoning delays under GST appeal provisions. It highlights that while statutory timelines are crucial, genuine reasons beyond the control of appellants should be considered with empathy. This case sets a precedent for future interpretations of procedural compliance and fairness in administrative decisions under GST laws, ensuring that justice is upheld while maintaining the integrity of statutory timelines.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

The petitioner, challenging the Assessment Order No.AD370323031615 dated 27.05.2023 passed by the 2^nd respondent, filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner/1^st respondent and the said authority by the impugned order dated 16.12.2023 has rejected the appeal on the sole ground that the appeal filed by the appellant is beyond the condonable period i.e., 56 days. Challenging the said order, the instant writ petition is filed.

02. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax-II.

03. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the GST Appellate Tribunal has not been constituted, the writ petition may be entertained. Additionally, while admitting that there is a delay of 56 days beyond the condonable period, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was bedridden during the relevant period i.e., from 05.08.2023 to 30.09.2023, as he fell in the bathroom and sustained back injury. The said delay of 56 days was not wanton but because of his ill-health and this factor was not considered by the 1^st respondent/1^st Appellate Authority on the ground that the said authority cannot condone the delay beyond the condonable period. He thus requested to consider the said fact and condone the delay and remit the matter back to the 1^st respondent to admit the appeal and hear the petitioner. Learned counsel relied upon the decisions of the High Court of Telangana reported in Narayanapet Municipality Vs Superintendent of Central Tax 2023 (74) G.S.T.L.296 (Telangana) and of this Court in W.P.Nos.17349 of 2023 & 42201 of 2022 to buttress his arguments.

04. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax-II. opposed the writ petition stating that, because there was a delay of 56 days beyond the condonable period, 1^st respondent was right in rejecting the appeal and as such the present writ petition is not sustainable.

05. We have considered the above respective submissions and perused the material available on record.

06. As submitted by the petitioner, the 1^st respondent has rejected the appeal on the sole ground that the appeal was filed with a delay of 56 days which was beyond the condonable period. Except that no other merits in the case of the petitioner were discussed. Be that it may, admittedly the GST appellate tribunal has not been constituted in terms of Sec.112 of APGST Act 2017 to carry out the matter to the said Tribunal. Therefore, this writ petition can be entertained by this Court.

In Narayanapet Municipality Vs Superintendent of Central Tax 2023 (74) G.S.T.L.296 (Telangana) when GST Registration was cancelled and the same was challenged, the appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority on the sole ground that the appeal was filed beyond the condonable period. In that context, the Division Bench of High Court of Telangana has observed thus:

“ 8) we further find that the issue pertains to cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and proper if the entire matter is remanded back to respondent No.1 to reconsider the case of the petitioner and thereafter to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

9) In the light of the above and without expressing any opinion on merit, we remand the matter back to the file of the respondent No.1 to consider the grievance expressed by the petitioner against cancellation of GST registration and thereafter pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. Needless to say, when the respondent No.1 hears the matter on remand, petitioner would be at liberty to submit the returns as per the statute.

10) Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.”

08. The above decision applies to the case of the petitioner as in the instant case also the sole ground on which the appeal was rejected was because the same was filed beyond the condonable period. Learned Government Pleader no doubt argued that the facts in the case are slightly different because the Division Bench of Telangana High Court also considered the fact that the GST Registration of the petitioner therein was cancelled suomotu on the ground of non filing of returns and allowed the writ petition and remitted the matter back to the concerned appellate authority. However, in the present case the main issue was that the appeal was rejected on the point that the same was filed beyond the condonable period. In our view both the cases deal with same aspect i.e., condoning the delay that was occurred beyond condonable period. In that case the impugned Order challenged in Appeal was the cancellation of Registration. Whereas, in the case on hand, the impugned order under challenge in Appeal is the Assessment Order. However, the principle in the cited decision being the condonation of delay beyond the condonable period, the same can be made applicable to case on hand also. Similarly, in Writ Petition Nos.17349 of 2023 and 42201 of 2022 a Division Bench of this High Court where one of us is a member, has considered similar issue and condoned delay on terms and remitted the matter back to the 1^st appellate authority. In view of the above judgments, we consider it apposite to allow the writ petition, however, on imposing suitable terms.

Accordingly this writ petition is allowed by condoning the entire delay in filing the appeal before the appellate authority on the condition of the petitioner depositing costs of Rs.20,000/- before the appellate authority within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. On such payment of costs, the appellate authority/1^st respondent shall restore the appeal and admit the same and pass necessary orders on merits after hearing both parties. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed.