Partner’s Illness Valid Ground for Condoning Delay in GST Appeal

By | January 12, 2026

Partner’s Illness Valid Ground for Condoning Delay in GST Appeal

 

Issue

Whether the Appellate Authority should condone a marginal delay in filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act when the delay was caused by the genuine illness of a partner in the assessee-firm.

Facts

  • The Order: An order was passed against the assessee-firm under Section 73 (Determination of tax not paid/short paid).

  • The Delay: The assessee filed an appeal against this order after the expiry of the statutory limitation period.

  • Reason for Delay: The assessee submitted that one of the partners was indisposed (ill) during the relevant period. The other partner, being the wife of the ailing partner, was presumably occupied with his care and could not file the appeal either.

  • Appellate Authority’s Action: The authority noted the ground of illness and the medical documents annexed but still rejected the appeal solely on the ground of limitation. Crucially, the authority did not disbelieve the genuineness of the illness/documents.

Decision

  • Sufficient Cause: The Court held that if one partner was unwell and the other (his wife) was unable to act due to this situation, it cannot be said that the petitioners were “grossly negligent” in pursuing their legal remedy.

  • Marginal Delay: The Court emphasized that since the delay was marginal and the reason was genuine (medical grounds), a liberal approach should be taken to advance substantial justice.

  • Verdict: The Appellate Authority’s order dismissing the appeal was set aside. The delay was condoned, and the appeal was restored to the file of the Appellate Authority to be heard on merits. [In favour of assessee]

Key Takeaways

  • Medical Grounds are Strong: Illness of the taxpayer or key authorized personnel is widely accepted by Courts as a “sufficient cause” for condonation of delay, provided it is supported by medical records.

  • Authority’s Duty: If an Appellate Authority accepts the evidence of illness (i.e., does not prove it fake), they are generally expected to condone the delay rather than dismissing the appeal on technicalities.

  • Spousal Partnership: In family-run firms (e.g., Husband & Wife partners), courts often recognize that the illness of one spouse naturally impacts the ability of the other to attend to business/legal matters.

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Ramaa Engineering
v.
State of West Bengal
Om Narayan Rai, J.
WPA No. 23387 of 2025
DECEMBER  17, 2025
Himangshu Kumar RaySubhasis PodderGourav ChakrabortyAnimitra Roy and Piyas Choudhury for the Petitioner. Tanoy ChakrabortyMs. Sumita Shaw and Saptak Sanyal for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. Affidavit of service as filed today on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.
2. This writ petition assails an order dated July 28, 2025 passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act of 2017′) whereby the petitioners’ appeal against an order dated June 20, 2024 passed under Section 73 of the said Act of 2017 has been dismissed on the ground of delay.
3. Mr. Ray, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners takes this Court through the application for condonation of delay filed before the appellate authority (at pages 81 to 84 of the writ petition) and submits that the appeal could not be presented before the appellate authority within the statutory period of limitation, since the petitioner no.2 was indisposed. Medical document in support of such contention has also been annexed as Annexure P-7 at page 86 of the writ petition.
4. It is noticed that the appellate authority has noted the ground of illness of the petitioner no.2 and has also noticed the document annexed in support thereof but has rejected the petitioners’ appeal on the ground of delay. The appellate authority has, however, not disbelieved the petitioners’ case that the petitioner no.2 was ill.
5. The petitioner no. 1 is a partnership firm. It is submitted by Mr. Ray that the said firm is constituted by the petitioner no.2 and his wife. If the petitioner no.2 who is one of the partners of the firm was unwell and the other partner being the wife of the petitioner no.2 could not file the appeal before the appellate authority due to the illness of the petitioner no.2, it cannot be said that the petitioners were grossly negligent in pursuing their cause more so when there is a marginal delay in preferring the appeal before the appellate authority.
6. In such view of the matter, particularly when the appellate authority has not disbelieved the factum of the illness of the petitioner no.2, the appellate authority should have condoned the delay occasioned by the petitioners in preferring the appeal.
7. Accordingly, the appellate order impugned dated July 28, 2025 is set aside and the delay occasioned by the petitioners in preferring the appeal before the appellate authority is condoned.
8. The appeal of the petitioners stands restored to the file of the appellate authority. The appellate authority shall now consider and dispose of the petitioners’ appeal on merits.
9. With the aforesaid observations WPA 23387 of 2025 stands disposed of.
10. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
11. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied as expeditiously as possible.
Category: GST

About CA Satbir Singh

Chartered Accountant having 12+ years of Experience in Taxation , Finance and GST related matters and can be reached at Email : Taxheal@gmail.com