Case Law Details
Isha Scraps Vs Superintendent (Madras High Court)
In the recent case of Isha Scraps Vs Superintendent, the Madras High Court provided a significant ruling. The court agreed to condone a delay of two days in the manual filing of an appeal after it had been submitted online on the GST Portal, underlining the flexibility and understanding within the Indian judiciary when valid reasons are provided.
Analysis: The petitioner, Isha Scraps, sought the court’s permission to file a statutory appeal after the cancellation of their registration under the Tamil Nadu Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The appeal was delayed by two days, which the petitioner attributed to a lack of understanding of the procedural technicalities and an absence of communication about the order uploaded on the GST portal.
The court, after reviewing the case, considered the delay of two days reasonable given the circumstances, and therefore, decided to condone it. Despite the appeal being filed online, a manual copy was required within seven days of e-filing, a stipulation that the petitioner had missed by two days.
Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents, Mr. Rajnish Pathiyil, did not object to the court’s decision, acknowledging the validity of the petitioner’s explanation and the minimal delay. The court allowed the petitioner to re-present the appeal papers within a week, with the assurance that it would be accepted without reference to limitation but with all other statutory conditions, including pre-deposit, being complied with.
Conclusion: The judgment by the Madras High Court in the case of Isha Scraps Vs Superintendent exemplifies an instance where the court showed leniency for minor delays, especially when sufficient justification was provided. This ruling may set a precedent for future cases involving minor procedural delays in the context of GST compliance and appeals.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Mr Rajnish Pathiyil, learned Senior Panel Counsel accepts notice for the respondents and is armed with sufficient instructions to enable a final disposal of this Writ Petition, even at the stage of admission.
2. The petitioner challenges an order of cancellation of registration dated 01.2023, passed in terms of the applicable provisions of the Tamil Nadu Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short ‘Act’).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner only prays that the petitioner may be permitted to file a statutory appeal.
4. The reason for approaching this Court is that the petitioner has instituted a statutory appeal before the first appellate authority on 09.05.2023, albeit with a delay of 2 days. This delay has been suitably explained in the affidavit to state that the petitioner was unaware of the technicalities of procedures to be followed and hence had missed the uploading of the order in the GST portal. He also states that there was no communication either by email or text to draw attention to the order uploaded in the portal and hence it missed the same. It was only after a delay of 2 days when the order was noticed ssary steps taken immediately.
5. This Court is of the considered view that the delay being only 2 days and sufficient reasons having been put forth to explain the same, the delay can well be condoned and I do so.
6. The appeal has been filed online by the petitioner on the GST portal. The applicable provision requires the petitioner to file a manual copy of the appeal within 7 days of e-filing. Thus, when the appeal was presented before the office of the appellate authority during the 2nd week of May, 2023, the appellate authority noted that the same had been filed with a delay of 2 days and hence the same was not received for issue of necessary form in GST APL-02. It is hence that this Writ Petition has come to be filed challenging the order of cancellation of registration.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would fairly accede to the position that the appropriate remedy is to permit the petitioner to pursue its statutory appeal.
8. Rajnish Pathiyil, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents, fairly, bearing in mind the smallness of the delay and the bonafide explanation tendered by the petitioner, does not stand in the way of substantial justice being done by this Court by permitting the petitioner to pursue its statutory remedy and by condoning the delay.
9. In light of the above, the delay of 2 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the challenge to the order of assessment is rejected. The petitioner is permitted to re-present the appeal papers within a period of one (1) week from today and if so re-presented, R2 shall receive the appeal without reference to limitation but ensuring compliance with all other statutory conditions, including pre-deposit, take the appeal on file, issue notice to the petitioner, hear it and dispose the same in accordance with law.
10. This Writ Petition and the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed, though with the liberty as aforesaid. No costs.
