Allowed

Shaik Abdul Azeez v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Jan 2024WP/33509/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A two-judge bench of the High Court condoned the delay of 128 days in filing a GST appeal under Section 107 APGST Act citing sufficient cause due to health issues, relying on a coordinate bench judgment to exercise writ jurisdiction to do complete justice.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 128 days in filing appeal under Section 107 APGST Act was condoned on payment of Rs. 20,000 costs; appeal remitted to appellate authority for decision on merits.

Shaik Abdul Azeez Vs the State of Ap — GST and Indirect Tax | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.33509 of 2023

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard Ms. Jyothi Ratna Anumolu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.A.V.Sai Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Tax-I for the respondents.

¶5

With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the present writ petition is being decided finally at this stage. 3. The petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled by order dated 13.03.2023 after show cause notice dated 14.01.2023. The petitioner filed appeal under Section 107 of Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘APGST Act’) which was rejected at the admission stage on the ground that it was barred by limitation and beyond the condonable statutory period.

¶6

The appeal was beyond the condonable period by 128 days. Under Section 107 of APGST Act, the appeal was to be filed within a period of limitation, in the present case, three months. The condonable period thereafter was one month. The appellate authority under the statutory provision has no power

¶7

¶8

to condone the delay beyond the condonable statutory period. Consequently, the appeal was rejected.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cause of the delay in not preferring the appeal within the statutory period as also the condonable period was that the petitioner’s health was not good and he was on bed rest. In this regard para Nos.4 & 7 of the affidavit have been referred.

¶10

The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in W.P.No.17349 of 2023 decided on 04.08.2023, in which a Coordinate Bench of this Court, after finding that the sufficient cause was shown to condone the delay in filing the appeal, remitted the matter to the appellate authority, by imposing the condition for payment of Rs.20,000/-.

¶11

Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax submits that considering the judgment of the coordinate Bench, the present matter may also be decided finally.

¶12

We have considered the submissions advanced.

¶13

In para-4 of the affidavit it is deposed that the petitioner had undergone surgery and was unable to look after his business. In para-7 of the affidavit it is submitted that the order of cancellation of registration was not communicated to the

¶14

¶15

petitioner physically and on account of the petitioner’s health condition, the petitioner could also not be aware of the impugned order.

¶16

In Ex.P3 annexed FORM GST APL-01 para-17 also it is mentioned that ‘reasons for delay – Health is not well... took bed rest’.

¶17

The cause as shown in the affidavit is sufficient.

¶18

Though the impugned order in view of Section 107 of APGST Act does not suffer from any illegality, as the appellate authority cannot condone the delay beyond statutory condonable period but considering that there was sufficient cause for not preferring appeal in time, the interest of justice requires condonation of the delay. The appeal is a valuable statutory right. In exercise of writ jurisdiction to do complete justice and provide opportunity of hearing on merits of the appeal, we condone the delay by imposing costs of Rs.20,000/-. The appellate authority shall consider and decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law, expeditiously. The Costs shall be deposited in two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order before the appellate authority.

¶19

The Writ Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶20

¶21

No order as to costs.

¶22

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand dismissed.

¶23

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J

¶24

____________________ HARINATH.N, J Date: 09.01.2024 AG

¶25

¶26

172

¶27

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶28

WRIT PETITION NO.33509 of 2023

¶29

Date: 09.01.2024

¶30

Shaik Abdul Azeez v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Abdul Azeez v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Royal Constructions, Vs The Additional Commissioner (Ct)

M/s.Thriveni Earth Movers Private Limited, Vs The Commissioner of Central Tax

M/S Rkec Projects Limited Vs Additional Commissioner

Karri Gangi Reddy S/o Veereddy Vs The Commissioner Commercial taxes Department

M S P Granites Vs the Assistant Commissioner (St)

M/S Sri Venkateswara Traders, Machavaram. Vs Income Tax Officer, WARD-2, Bapatla.