High Court Condones GST Appeal Delay and Directs Hearing on Merits When Sufficient Cause Shown

By | October 3, 2026
0 Comment

High Court Condones GST Appeal Delay and Directs Hearing on Merits When Sufficient Cause Shown

High Court Condones GST Appeal Delay and Directs Hearing on Merits When Sufficient Cause Shown

Issue

Whether the First Appellate Authority was justified in dismissing a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/WBGST Act as time-barred when the assessee demonstrated sufficient cause for delay due to medical illness and fulfilled the mandatory pre-deposit requirement.

Facts

  • An assessment order under Section 73 was passed by the adjudicating authority on March 13, 2023, and communicated to the petitioner via the GST Portal.
  • The petitioner remained unaware of the order as the person entrusted with managing the business’s GST compliance fell seriously ill, which was substantiated by medical records.
  • Upon discovering the order, the petitioner deposited the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 107(6) and filed a statutory appeal on August 21, 2023.
  • The First Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on September 13, 2023, holding that it was filed beyond the prescribed period under Section 107(1) and the condonable limit under Section 107(4).
  • The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the rejection of the appeal and seeking condonation of delay.

Decision

  • Held in favor of the assessee; the order dated September 13, 2023, passed by the First Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal was quashed and set aside.
  • Held in favor of the assessee; dismissing an appeal solely on grounds of limitation without evaluating the sufficient cause demonstrated and compliance with Section 107(6) adopts a hyper-technical approach that renders the appellate remedy illusory.
  • Held in favor of the assessee; the delay in filing the appeal from the date of communication was condoned, and the First Appellate Authority was directed to admit the appeal and hear the matter on merits within three weeks.

Key Takeaways

  • Substantial Justice Over Technicality: Summary dismissal on limitation grounds when mandatory pre-deposit is satisfied and genuine grounds exist defeats the statutory purpose of the appellate remedy.
  • Medical Emergency as Valid Ground: Serious illness of an employee or authorized representative handling GST compliance constitutes “sufficient cause” for condoning appeal delays.
  • Writ Relief for Condonation: High Courts can exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to condone appeal delays beyond strict statutory limits to prevent injustice and ensure an opportunity for hearing on merits.
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
VA Tech Wabag Ltd.
v.
Assistant Commissioner of Revenue
Smita Das De, J.
WPA Nos. 14367, 14368, 14369, 14371 and 14372 of 2024
SEPTEMBER  10, 2026
Boudhayan Bhattacharyya, Ms. Stuti Bansal, Ms. Keya Kundu, Ms. Chayna Kumary and S. Banerjee for the Petitioner. Ms. Manasi Mukherjee, Bijitesh Mukherjee, Bhaskar Pposad Banerjee and Ms. Ekta Sinha for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. In the course of hearing, this Court finds that the issues involved in these writ petitions are not identical in nature, let these writ petitions being WPA 14368 of 2024, WPA 14369 of 2024, WPA 14371 of 2024 & WPA 14372 of 2024 be de-tagged accordingly.
In Re: WPA 14367 of 2024
2. The core issue involved in the instant case is whether the first appellate authority has been justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), on the ground of limitation despite the petitioner having paid the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 107(6) and having demonstrated sufficient cause for delay.
3. The question arises is as to whether the First Appellate Authority has been justified in refusing to condone the delay when sufficient cause has been shown and the statutory pre-deposit stood satisfied.
4. The petitioner submits that an order under Section 73 of the said Act has been passed by the adjudicating authority on 13.03.2023. The said Order has been communicated to the petitioner through the GST Portal.
5. The petitioner upon learning of the order, filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority on 21.08.2023 after paying the mandatory pre-deposit as required under Section 107(6) of the said Act.
6. The First Appellate authority dismissed the appeal vide Order dated 13.09.2023 holding inter alia, that the appeal has been filed beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 107(1) and 107(4) of the said Act and that the application for condonation of delay could not be entertained. GST Forms APL-02 has been issued accordingly.
7. It is contended by the petitioner that the delay in filing the appeal has not been willful but occurred due to circumstances beyond its control namely, the medical condition of the entrusted person to communicate the order. Sufficient cause for delay has been demonstrated in the reply to the show cause notice dated 24.08.2023.
8. It is submitted that once the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 107(6) stands satisfied and the amount has been debited, the appeal ought to be entertained on merits.
9. The dismissal of the appeal solely on the ground of limitation without considering sufficient cause and the substantial compliance, defeats the very purpose of the appellate remedy under the statute.
10. The impugned order of the First Appellate Authority is arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside.
11. The petitioner prays for setting aside the order dated 13.09.2023 for condonation of delay for a direction upon the First Appellate Authority to hear the appeal on merits in a time bound manner.
12. The Learned Counsel appearing for the State respondents vehemently opposes the Writ Petition.
13. It is submitted that the appeal has admittedly filed beyond the statutory period of three months plus one months as prescribed under Section 107(1) and 107(4) of the said Act. The First Appellate Authority has no power to condone delay beyond the said period.
14. After hearing the rival contentions of the parties and upon perusing the materials available on records, this Court is prima facie, satisfied that the petitioner has demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay. The Order dated 13.03.2023 has been communicated to the petitioner, however, he remained unaware of the said order, as the person whom he had entrusted with looking after the affairs of the business fell seriously ill, as is evident from the medical documents annexed at page 52 of the writ petition.
15. Admittedly the petitioner had paid the mandatory pre-deposit and filed the appeal on 21.08.2023.
16. The dismissal of the appeal solely on the ground of limitation without considering the sufficient cause shown and the substantial compliance which Section 107(6), amounts to a hyper technical approach. When the mandatory pre deposit stands satisfied, the appellate remedy cannot be rendered illusory.
17. To balance the equities and to secure the ends of justice, this Court is of the view that the interference is warranted at this stage. The delay in preferring the appeal deserves to be condoned.
18. In view of the above, the Order dated 13.09.2023 passed by the First Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal is hereby quashed and set aside.
19. The delay in filing the appeal from the date of communication of the order dated 13.03.2023 shall stand condoned and the First Appellate Authority is directed to admit and hear the appeal on merits.
20. The First Appellate Authority shall hear and dispose of the appeal peremptorily within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of this order and shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with law upon affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
21. The petitioner shall not seek any further adjournment on the date fixed for hearing by the First Appellate Authority failing which the appeal shall be heard and a final order may be passed ex parte.
22. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner is directed to communicate this order to the respondent No.2 forth with. With above observations and direction, the Writ Petition being WPA 14367 of 2024 is disposed of.
23. Since the affidavits have not been called for the allegations made in the Writ Petition are deemed to have been denied and not admitted.
24. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.