Substantial Justice Over Procedural Technicality: 15-Day Delay Condoned Due to Indo-Pak Conflict; High Court Reverses Dismissal of Appeal

1. The Core Dispute: Procedural Timeline vs. Ground Realities

The petitioner sought to file an appeal against a GST order but faced multiple hurdles that pushed the filing past the standard three-month deadline.

The Excluded Time: The petitioner had spent 26 days pursuing a writ petition before the High Court. Following a court order, this period was excluded from the limitation calculation, shifting the “last date” for the appeal.
The Remaining Delay: Even with the extension, the appeal was filed 15 days late.
The Cause: The petitioner cited the Indo-Pak conflict during May 2025 as the primary reason for the delay.
The Revenue’s Stand: The Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 3) rejected the condonation request, questioning why the petitioner did not file the appeal before the conflict intensified (specifically before May 7, 2025).

2. Legal Analysis: The Spirit of Section 107(4)

The High Court scrutinized the Appellate Authority’s decision to “knock out” the appeal at the threshold.

I. The Statutory Window for Condonation

Under Section 107(4), the law allows a taxpayer 3 months to file an appeal, plus a discretionary 1-month window for condonation if “sufficient cause” is shown.

The Ruling: The 15-day delay fell well within this one-month statutory “grace period.” The Court held that the Appellate Authority’s approach was “hyper-technical.” When a delay is minor (like 15 days), authorities should lean toward deciding the case on its merits rather than dismissing it on procedural grounds.

II. Sufficient Cause: Real vs. Fanciful

The Court evaluated the petitioner’s reason—the Indo-Pak conflict in the Jammu and Kashmir region.

The Finding: The grounds were neither “imaginary” nor “fanciful.” Localized conflicts constitute a valid “sufficient cause” as they disrupt normal life and professional communication. The Revenue’s logic that the petitioner “should have filed earlier” was rejected as it ignored the reality of the situation.

3. Final Verdict: Orders Set Aside

The High Court emphasized that procedural laws are intended to facilitate justice, not obstruct it.

Verdict: The order dismissing the appeal was set aside.
Outcome: The 15-day delay was formally condoned, and the Appellate Authority was directed to hear and decide the appeal on its merits.
Key Principle: Substantial justice must always take precedence over technicalities, especially when the delay is minimal and the cause is credible.

Key Takeaways for Taxpayers

The 3+1 Rule: Always remember the “plus one” month. If you miss the 3-month deadline, you have exactly 30 days to file with a condonation application. Beyond that 4th month, even the Courts find it difficult to help you due to statutory limits.
Document the “Cause”: If you are delayed by external factors (natural disasters, regional conflicts, or health emergencies), keep newspaper clippings, government advisories, or medical certificates to support your application.
The Exclusion Rule: If you were mistakenly pursuing a remedy in the wrong forum (like a Writ instead of an Appeal), you can request the Court to exclude that time from your limitation period under the Limitation Act.

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

Navayuga Engineering Company Ltd.

Union Territory of J and K^*

Arun Palli, CJ.
and RAJNESH OSWAL, J.

W. P. (C) No. 133 OF 2026
CM No. 320 OF 2026

FEBRUARY 5, 2026

Sachin Sharma, Adv. for the Appellant. Ms. Sagira Jaffer, Assisting counsel and Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

Rajnesh Oswal, J.- Order dated 17.01.2025 passed by respondent No. 4 was assailed by the petitioner through the medium of WP(C) No. 663/2025, titled, ‘M/s Navayuga Engineering Co. Ltd. v. UT of J&K & Ors.’ and the writ petition was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.04.2025, whereby STO concerned was directed to consider the reply, if any, submitted by the petitioner to the impugned show cause notice and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks in accordance with law. The petitioner was left free to work out the remedy against any such order to be passed by the STO concerned. In respect of an appealable order, the time spent by the petitioner before the Court was directed not to be reckoned towards calculating the period of limitation.

2. Thereafter, the petitioner assailed the order dated 17.01.2025 before respondent No. 3 through the medium of appeal accompanied with an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal but the same was dismissed by respondent No. 3 on the ground of it being time barred vide order dated 19.01.2026.

3. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 19.01.2026 primarily on the ground that the last date for filing of appeal after excluding 26 days was 12.05.2025 but in terms of Section 107(4) of J&K SGST, 2017/CGST Act 2017, the delay till 11.06.2025 in filing the appeal could have been condoned by respondent No. 3 but respondent No. 3 dismissed the application along with the appeal despite the fact that the delay in filing the appeal was fully explained and there was no deliberate attempt on the part of the petitioner to file the appeal beyond the period of limitation. It is urged that there was only marginal delay of 15 days, which could have condoned in terms of Section 107(4) of the Act, particularly in view of the proper explanation tendered by the petitioner.

4. Notice.

5. Ms. Sagira Jaffer, Assisting counsel to Mrs. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG waives notice. After receiving instructions, she has submitted that in view of the legal point involved, the respondents would not file the response and as such, the matter may be finally considered on the basis of record.

6. Heard and perused the record.

7. The limitation period for the order dated 17.01.2025 originally expired on 16.04.2025. However, the petitioner spent 26 days i.e. from 17.03.2025 to 11.04.2025, in pursuing a writ petition before this Court. In terms of order of the Coordinate Bench to exclude this time, the last date for filing the appeal stood extended to 12.05.2025. Consequently, the present appeal having been filed on 28.05.2025 suffers from a delay of 15 days, for which condonation was sought.

8. A perusal of the order impugned reveals that respondent No. 3 has taken note of the cause projected by the petitioner regarding Indo-Pak conflict during May, 2025 but has observed, as to why the petitioner did not prefer the appeal before 07.05.2025 and on that ground only, dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay along with the appeal. In terms of Section 107(4) of the Act, the Appellate Authority, if satisfied that the appellant was prevented from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of three months or six months as the case may be, can allow it to be presented within a period of one month, meaning thereby, that if the appellant demonstrates sufficient cause preventing him from presenting the appeal within three months/six months, the appeal can be presented within a further period of one month.

9. The grounds urged in the Petitioner’s application for condonation of delay can neither be termed as imaginary nor fanciful. Given that the delay was a mere 15 days, Respondent No. 3 erred by adopting a hyper-technical approach to ‘knock out’ the appeal at the threshold. Such a dismissal is contrary to the spirit of Section 107(4) of the Act, which explicitly permits the condonation of delay within an extended one-month window. Since the limitation period (after legal exclusions) expired on 12.05.2025, the Respondents’ insistence that the appeal should have been preferred by 07.05.2025 is logically flawed and legally unsustainable; it effectively curtails the statutory period granted to the Petitioner.

10. Accordingly, we set aside the order dated 19.01.2026 and condone the delay in filing the appeal and remit the matter to respondent No. 3 for adjudication of the appeal on merits.

11. Disposed of.