Madras HC Allows Time-Barred GST Appeal Citing Minor 9-Day Delay & Illness

G.R. Megaa Engineering Vs Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) (Madras High Court)

In this case, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for belated filing of the annual return in Form GSTR-9, culminating in an order dated 18.08.2023. The petitioner filed an appeal on 26.12.2023; however, it was rejected by the appellate authority on the ground that it was filed beyond the condonable period prescribed under Section 107 of the GST statutes. The condonable period had expired on 17.12.2023, resulting in a delay of nine days beyond the permissible limit.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking an opportunity to contest the matter on merits, stating that the delay occurred because the documents were handed over to an accountant and the petitioner was unwell during the relevant period. Upon recovery, the petitioner discovered that the appeal had not been filed in time.

The Court examined the facts and noted that the delay beyond the condonable period was only nine days and that the reasons provided by the petitioner justified consideration of the appeal on merits. Accordingly, the Court directed the appellate authority to receive and dispose of the appeal on merits without considering the limitation issue, subject to the condition that the appeal is re-presented within ten days from receipt of the order.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

In respect of belated filing of annual return in Form GSTR 9, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and such proceedings culminated in order dated 18.08.2023. Such order was carried in appeal by the petitioner by lodging the appeal on 26.12.2023. On the ground that the appeal was beyond the condonable period under Section 107 of applicable GST statutes, the appeal was rejected. The present writ petition was filed in the said facts and circumstances.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the above mentioned sequence of dates and events and submitted that the petitioner be provided an opportunity to contest the matter on merits given that the annual return was filed by the petitioner on 29.06.2023.

3. Mrs. K.Vasanthamala, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for the respondents. She submits that the appeal was rejected because such appeal was presented beyond the condonable period.

4. On examining the impugned appellate order, it is clear that the petitioner presented the appeal on 26.12.2023 and the condonable period lapsed on 17.12.2023. The period of delay beyond the condonable period is only nine days. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner stated that the papers were handed over to the accountant for filing the appeal and that the petitioner was not well during the relevant period. Immediately upon recovery, the petitioner contacted the auditor and came to know that the appeal had not been filed. These facts and circumstances justify the consideration of the petitioner’s appeal on merits.

5. For reasons aforesaid, W.P.No.18545 of 2024 is disposed of by directing the appellate authority to receive and dispose of the petitioner’s appeal on merits, without going into the question of limitation, provided such appeal is re-presented within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.20328 and 20331 of 2024 are closed.