Case Law Details
Pawan Fabrics Vs Commissioner ( Punjab and Haryana High Court)
In the case of Pawan Fabrics Vs Commissioner, the Punjab and Haryana High Court addressed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an appeal by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds of filing beyond the prescribed limitation period under the GST Act. The petitioner cited exceptional circumstances, including mental stress and business hardships caused by the second lockdown, which hindered the timely filing of the appeal. The petitioner submitted medical records to support his claim and sought relief to reinstate his GST registration for restarting his business.
The petitioner relied on the High Court’s earlier judgment in M/s Vasudeva Engineering Vs Union of India, which held that procedural delays in filing appeals should not render a person remedy-less, especially in cases where GST registration cancellation affects broader business operations. The court in that case underscored the importance of providing an opportunity for appeals to ensure justice and maintain business continuity.
The respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the delay was fatal and non-condonable. However, the court, referencing the Supreme Court judgment in M/s Tecnimont Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Punjab, highlighted that procedural rules should not be rigidly applied to deny substantive justice. The High Court emphasized that appellate authorities must balance procedural compliance with the fundamental right to be heard.
Acknowledging the petitioner’s medical condition and financial struggles, the court condoned the delay and directed the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) to hear the appeal on its merits. It instructed both parties to be given a fair hearing and ordered that the matter be resolved within three months. This decision reinforces the principle that procedural delays, when reasonably justified, should not obstruct access to justice or the revival of businesses.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Application for placing on record reply on behalf of respondents is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Registry to place the same at appropriate place.
Present application has been filed for early hearing of the main case.
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Main case is preponed and taken up today itself.
CWP-8187-2024 (O&M)
1. Heard both the counsel on merits.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was solely rejected on the ground of having been filed after the period of limitation had expired.
3. Learned counsel submits that it was not to the knowledge of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), the circumstances as mentioned by the petitioner and noted in the order in appeal, which were as under:
“Second lock down effected my business and put me in mental stress. I faced lot of challenges to recover the money from debtors and suffered the burden of creditors. I suffered with heavy loses. I was mentally disturbed and using pills to recover. During this period due to unawareness and mess with problems I missed my duty towards filling returns and my number was cancelled. Now I little bit recovered from financial loss and want to start my business again. So kindly give me a chance to revoke my GST registration for restart my business with same GST number.”
4. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had been unwell, and he has also placed medical treatment papers before us to submit that the delay deserves to be condoned. He relies on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of M/s Vasudeva Engineering v. The Union of India and others CWP-27468-2023 & other connected cases, decided on 24.10.2024, wherein we have held as under:
““3. The provisions of the said Act, 2017 are for the purpose of providing relief to the businessman in an appropriate matter where the demand may have been raised wrongfully or illegally by preferring an appeal. If on account of delay which may occur due to several reasons, relating to business affairs, the businessman is precluded from filing of an appeal, he/she would become remedy less. The cancellation of registration of GST has cascading effect on all the other businessman too who are receiving the goods from the concerned businessmen whose GST registration has been cancelled. Therefore, in these circumstances, it is essential that a finality should be arrived at between the decision taken for cancellation of the registration and also at the same time remedy should be available which is efficacious to the concerned aggrieved person.
4. Accordingly, we hold that the powers to hear the appeal in terms of Section 107 of the Act would not be subject to filing of an appeal within the time prescribed wherein, it would not in any manner deprive a person from claiming the right of hearing of an appeal by filing of a writ petition before this Court for condonation of delay.
5. Now considering the aforesaid issue which is purely legal, we find that no reply from the respondents is required to be filed and we condoned the delay also as the petitioner(s) have already submitted the pre-deposit amount for hearing of the appeal.”
5. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the petition, and submits that the delay is fatal, and appeal cannot be heard on account of the delay caused.
6. We have considered the submissions and find that so far as the order passed by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation is concerned, the action cannot be said to be unjustified. However, taking into consideration the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Tecnimont Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Punjab and others, 2019 INSC 1054, we have taken a view in M/s Vasudeva Engineering as above (supra).
7. In view thereto and considering the documents and medical condition of the petitioner, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing of appeal, and accordingly we direct the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal on merits without delving on the question of limitation. It is directed that both the parties shall be given opportunity of fair hearing, and the appeal shall be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from today.
8. Writ petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.
9. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.
Author Bio
