Delay in Filing Appeal: Mere Plea of Counsel's Family Emergency without Proof is insufficient

Delay in Filing Appeal: Mere Plea of Counsel’s Family Emergency without Proof is insufficient

Issue

Whether the Appellate Authority or the High Court (under Article 226) can condone a delay beyond the statutory period (3+1 months) under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act when the delay is attributed to the hospitalization of the counsel’s wife, but no medical documents or affidavits are produced to substantiate the claim.

Facts

Order Communicated: 21-04-2023.
Appeal Filed: 21-08-2023 (After a delay of 4 months).
Statutory Limit: 3 months for filing + 1 month condonable by Appellate Authority (Total 4 months).
Reason for Delay: The assessee claimed that the documents were handed over to their advocate, but the appeal was delayed because the advocate’s wife was hospitalized.
The Defect: The assessee failed to attach any medical documents, discharge summaries, or even a personal affidavit/declaration from the counsel regarding the wife’s illness. This lack of evidence persisted even in the writ petition before the High Court.

Decision

Strict Proof for “Sufficient Cause”: The High Court held that “sufficient cause” is not an empty formality. A mere verbal assertion of a medical emergency is insufficient to override statutory limitation periods.
Evidence is Mandatory: The Court noted that the assessee failed to provide:
- Dates of hospitalization.
- Nature of the ailment.
- Medical records.
- An affidavit from the counsel confirming the situation.
No Interference: Since the assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause with evidence before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the High Court, there was no ground to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. The dismissal of the appeal was upheld.

Key Takeaways

Document Your Excuses: If you are late in filing an appeal due to medical reasons, you must attach medical certificates, hospital bills, or a sworn affidavit. A vague excuse like “counsel was busy with family medical issue” will be rejected.
Non-Condonable Period: Once the 3+1 month window expires, the Appellate Authority has no power to condone delay. The High Court can condone it under Article 226, but only for exceptional, well-documented reasons.
Client’s Responsibility: The courts often hold that the negligence of the counsel (agent) binds the client (principal) unless the client was vigilant. Handing over papers is not enough; follow-ups are required.

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

Shivam Traders

Proper Officer-sum-Superintendent, Karnal^*

Mrs. Lisa Gill and Mrs. MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, JJ.

CWP No. 11742 of 2025 (O & M)

DECEMBER 8, 2025

Piyush Hans, Adv. for the Petitioner. Sourabh Goel, Sr. Standing Counsel and Ms. Geetika Sharma, Adv. for the Respondent.

ORDER

Mrs. Lisa Gill, J.- Prayer in this petition is for setting aside order dated 27.09.2024 (Annexure P-11) passed by Commissioner (Appeals) and order dated 24.03.2023 (Annexure P-9) passed by Office of Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division Karnal.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently argues that First Appellate Authority has wrongly dismissed the appeal filed by petitioner on the ground of delay, which is stated to be beyond four months. It is submitted that it is incorrectly held that there is a delay of a period beyond four months, which cannot be condoned under Section 107(4) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘CGST Act’).

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that assessment order was passed on 24.03.2023 and it was communicated on 21.04.2023. Period of three months would thus expire on 21.07.2023 and additional period of another month, benefit of which can be given by First Appellate Authority would come to an end on 21.08.2023 i.e. the date on which appeal was filed by petitioner. It is submitted that relevant documents had been submitted by petitioner to his Advocate but appeal could not be filed by the Advocate as his wife was hospitalised in the month of June and July, 2023 and Advocate was busy taking care of his wife. When petitioner was informed of the same, another counsel was engaged and appeal was filed on 21.08.2023. It is thus submitted that order dated 27.09.2024 be set aside and matter be remanded to First Appellate Authority to be decided on merits.

3. Learned counsel for respondent on advance notice has opposed the writ petition and sought its dismissal.

4. We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the file with their able assistance.

5. It is to be noted that order dated 24.03.2023 was conveyed to petitioner on 21.04.2023. Therefore, the period of three months provided under the Act for filing an appeal would necessarily come to an end on 21.07.2023. It is well within the jurisdiction of First Appellate Authority to condone further period of one month i.e. up till 21.08.2023, provided sufficient cause can be shown by the assessee seeking condonation of delay. In this aspect, First Appellate Authority has incorrectly held that there is a delay beyond the period of four months as it is a settled position that the date on which the order is communicated/passed has to be excluded while calculating the period in question. However, at the same time, we take note of the fact that petitioner was unable to demonstrate sufficient cause for this delay before the First Appellate Authority. First Appellate Authority in this respect has observed as under:

“12. In this regard it is to be noted that appellant has not submit medical documents and declaration from advocate whose wife was hospitalized. Thus, the reasons for delay given by appellant are not satisfactory and does not show any sufficient cause. The appellant’s plea, as presented in the condonation request, is founded on assumptions and presumptions that have no basis in law. The statutory framework under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, does not accommodate such interpretations. The evidence on record unmistakably reveals a glaring lack of any sincere or diligent effort on the appellant’s part to exercise this right. The reasons for this failure which remain unexplained, suggest a calculated and deliberate attempt to employ this omission as a pretext for filing appeal late without proving the onus. Such conduct appears to be a strategic maneuver rather than an innocent oversight. Further the appeal has been filed after delay of more than 4 months which cannot be condoned Section 107(4) of the CGST Act-2017.”

6. Perusal of present writ petition reveals that neither any document was attached by petitioner to indicate hospitalisation of wife of the counsel to whom the matter had been entrusted nor is there any such declaration by the counsel. It is pertinent to note that petitioner has not annexed any such document even with present writ petition. We also do not find any detail or even description of the ailment which the counsel’s wife may have been suffering from.

7. When faced with the same, learned counsel for petitioner at this stage submits that the petitioner should now be afforded some time to place on record the requisite documents.

8. We do not find any merit in this submission keeping in view the fact that no such document was firstly placed before the First Appellate Authority. Thereafter writ petition was filed on 11.01.2025 and certain objections had been raised by Registry, which were removed by petitioner after much delay and petition refiled on 25.04.2025. Matter was ultimately listed for hearing on 07.05.2025. No such details of ailment of advocate’s wife or any attending documents were appended till then. Thereafter matter is being adjourned from 07.05.2025 till today at request of learned counsel for petitioner. Still no effort was made by petitioner to place on record any such detail along with supporting documents. Thus, we do not find any justification for adjourning this petition any further as requested for this purpose.

9. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above, we do not find any ground for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

10. Present petition is accordingly dismissed.

11. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.