HC Condones Appeal Delay Beyond Statutory Limit on Medical Grounds.

HC Condones Appeal Delay Beyond Statutory Limit on Medical Grounds.

Issue

Can a High Court, exercising its constitutional writ jurisdiction, condone a delay in filing a statutory GST appeal beyond the maximum period prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST Act, especially when the delay was caused by a genuine and severe medical emergency?

Facts

• An adverse order dated October 8, 2023, was passed against the petitioner, creating a GST demand.
• The petitioner underwent a critical surgery and was hospitalized at Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Narayana Superspeciality Hospital from December 20, 2023, to December 24, 2023, followed by a period of recuperation.
• Due to this medical situation, the statutory appeal was filed on February 28, 2024, with a delay of about 20 days beyond the maximum condonable period of four months.
• The GST Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal as time-barred, correctly stating that it lacked the statutory power to condone a delay beyond the period specified in Section 107.
• The petitioner then filed a writ petition in the High Court, challenging this dismissal.

Decision

• The High Court ruled in favour of the assessee and remanded the matter.
• It acknowledged that while the Appellate Authority is bound by the strict timelines of Section 107 and has no power to condone delays beyond four months, this statutory limitation does not restrict the High Court’s extraordinary constitutional powers under writ jurisdiction.
• The court examined the medical records and found that the petitioner had a genuine and sufficient cause for the delay.
• Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate authority’s dismissal order, condoned the delay itself, and directed the authority to hear and decide the appeal on its merits after giving the petitioner a proper hearing.

Key Takeaways

• Writ Jurisdiction Can Override Statutory Timelines: A High Court’s power under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary and can be invoked to ensure justice in exceptional circumstances, even when a statutory remedy has become time-barred.
• Genuine Hardship is a Key Factor: A severe medical emergency, supported by documentary evidence, is considered a strong and genuine reason that can persuade a court to exercise its discretionary powers to condone a delay.
• Substantive Justice Over Procedural Bars: The ruling prioritizes the taxpayer’s substantive right to have their case heard on merits over a strict procedural time limit, especially when the failure to comply was for reasons beyond the taxpayer’s control.
• Appellate Authority vs. High Court Powers: The case clearly distinguishes between the limited powers of a statutory appellate authority (who cannot condone delays beyond the prescribed period) and the expansive constitutional powers of a High Court (which can, in appropriate cases).