Appeal restored as it was rejected due to no GST provision to condone delay

High Court restored the appeal as it was dismissed only due to no provision under GST Act to condone delay

In a recent judgment, Hon’ble Madras High Court quashed the impugned order in DRC-07 and remanded the case as assessee’s appeal was rejected only on the ground that there is no provision under GST Act to condone the delay. 

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4225 (2024) (08) abcaus.in HC

In the instant case, the assessee had filed a Writ Petition praying to quash order in Form DRC-07 passed by GST Authorities.

The Petitioner was carrying on the business of textile. and The Commercial Officer issued a show cause notice calling for explanation from the Petitioner, fixing the date of personal hearing. The Petitioner submitted a reply and appeared for personal hearing, pointing out the reasons for mismatch and the same was corrected and reconciled.

However, without considering the explanation of the Petitioner, the Commercial Officer issued the impugned order through the Online Portal. Hence, the Petitioner was not aware of the same.

On coming to know about the order after four months, the Petitioner, with a delay of 21 days, filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (GST)(Appeal) by enclosing all necessary documents and paying pre-deposit. However, the appeal was rejected only on the ground that there is no provision under the GST Act to condone the delay.

Before the Hon’ble High Court, the assessee submitted that the appeal was rejected only on the ground of delay, stating that there is no provision under the Act to condone the delay and not on merits, though the Petitioner had filed relevant documents, stating sufficient reasons for mismatch of the amounts in the relevant forms and hence, the impugned orders be set aside.

The Hon’ble High Court found that it was evident that the appeal was dismissed only on the ground that there is no provision under the GST Act to condone the delay and there was no whisper about the reply filed by the Petitioner having been considered by the Petitioner.

The Hon’ble High Court also observed that according to the Petitioner, the reason for not filing the appeal in time was that the Proprietor of the Petitioner Firm was not well at the relevant point of time and the Petitioner would be able to establish their case if an opportunity is provided.

The Hon’ble High Court opined that the reasons stated appeared to be genuine. It was also not in dispute that the Petitioner had already made a pre-deposit of Rs. 35,066/- which was more than 10% of the demanded tax amount. In these circumstances, it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to the Petitioner to contest the tax demand on merits.

Accordingly, the Hon’ble High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal and the appeal was restored to the file of the Deputy Commissioner (GST)(Appeal) and the impugned orders was set aside.

The Dy Commissioner GST (Appeal) was directed to consider the appeal afresh and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after providing a reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner, including a personal hearing. 

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• Deduction u/s 80P denied as return not filed u/s 139(1) but in response to notice u/s 148
• High Court denied pre-arrest bail to accused of fake ITC utilisation
• ITR was not non est for no e-verification when AO took cognizance of returned income
• Section 43CB & ICDS-III is applicable to contractors not to real estate developers
• Expenses of ESOP are allowable as revenue expenditure u/s 37(1) of Income Tax Act.