Assessee’s Contention That He Was Sick & Advised Bed Rest Suspicious: Kerala HC Dismisses Plea Seeking Condonation Of Four-Year Delay In Filing GST Appeals

The Assessee (Petitioner) sought relief for condonation of delay in filing Appeals under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the Act). The Appeals, which were filed nearly four years after the Assessment Orders, were dismissed as time-barred by the Appellate Authority.

A Single Bench of Justice Gopinath P. stated, “This Writ Petition has been filed only in the year 2024. That is another reason to decline relief. The petitioner has failed to approach this Court within a reasonable time. The contention of the petitioner that he was sick and advised bed rest due to fatty liver disease has to be taken with a pinch of suspicion. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition fails, and it is accordingly dismissed.”

Advocate Moosa E.S. appeared for the Petitioner, while Senior GP Thushara James represented the Respondents.

The Petitioner filed the Writ Petition challenging the Orders of the Appellate Authority dismissing his Appeals as time-barred. The Assessment Orders under Section 62 of the Act, pertaining to non-filing of returns for various periods, were issued.

The Petitioner claimed that the delay in filing the appeals was due to medical reasons. He alleged that he was advised bed rest on account of a "fatty liver" condition, which prevented him from filing Appeals within the statutory period. However, the Appeals were only filed in 2024, after an inordinate delay of about four years.

The Petitioner relied on Judgments of the Calcutta High Court to argue that applications for condonation of delay should be considered liberally and without a very technical approach. He contended that extraordinary circumstances prevented him from filing the appeals on time and urged the Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The High Court observed that the Orders under challenge were issued in 2020, and the Appeals were filed only in 2024 nearly four years later. The Court held that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any “extraordinary circumstances” that would justify the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Bench referred to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises v. CCE. (2008), which clarified that Courts cannot extend statutory time limits prescribed for filing appeals unless specifically provided for under the statute. The Court also noted that though the Limitation Act, 1963, does not directly apply to appeals under the CGST/SGST Acts, even the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act is only available in appropriate cases involving extraordinary circumstances.

“It is only when the Court finds certain extraordinary circumstances that prevented the petitioner from filing an appeal within time, the Court will exercise such jurisdiction (in rare cases) and direct that the petitioner should be permitted to contest an appeal filed beyond the statutory time limit, on merits,” the Bench remarked.

Consequently, the Court observed, “There is yet another aspect of the matter. Though Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not fix any period of limitation for the filing of a writ petition, it is settled law that a writ petition can be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. As already observed the orders issued by the adjudicating authority were issued in the month of February 2020. This Writ Petition has been filed only in the year 2024. That is another reason to decline relief. The petitioner has failed to approach this Court within a reasonable time.”

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.

Cause Title: Baiju George v. Commissioner Of Goods And Service Taxes & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:87231)

Click here to read/download the Judgment