GST Appeals cannot be Dismissed by Slipshod Orders: Chhattisgarh HC condones 26-Day Delay by Gannon Dunkerley [Read Order]
Although in the tax statute the limitation is interpreted in a strict manner but when the legislature itself has prescribed extended period of time after period of limitation then the Authority ought to have considered such an aspect and examined the cause shown by the appellant.
GST Appeals - Slipshod Orders - Chhattisgarh HC - taxscan.
GST Appeals - Slipshod Orders - Chhattisgarh HC - taxscan.
The Chhattisgarh High Court set aside the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) order summarily rejecting the assessee Gannon Dunkerley’s appeal without proper reasoning and cautioned against passing “slipshod orders” in the name of disposal drives. The High Court also condoned the delay of 26 days in filing stating the authorities failed to examine the cause for delay.
Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari observed that “Generally when any application or appeal is preferred within a condonable period the concerned Authorities are expected to consider the delay in liberal manner. Although in the tax statute the limitation is interpreted in strict manner but when the legislature itself has prescribed extended period of time after period of limitation then the Authority ought to have considered such aspect and examined the cause shown by the appellant.”
TheDeputy Commissioner of State Tax, Korba, passed an ex parte demand order on 29 April 2024 against Gannon Dunkerley for FY 2018-19, raising liability of over ₹72 lakh without affording the company an opportunity of hearing.
The company’s subsequent appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, was filed with a 26-day delay. Despite filing a condonation application, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal on 19 June 2025, citing delay in submission, without examining the cause or merits of the matter.
The bench, while hearing the writ petition, observed that the GST Act, particularly under Section 75(4), mandates granting an opportunity of hearing whenever an adverse decision is contemplated. Further, Section 107(12) obliges appellate orders to be in writing, stating points for determination, findings, and reasons. However, the Authority in this case failed to follow these mandates.
CBIC Extends GSTR-3B Filing Due Date: New Due Date & Applicable Cities Announced [Read Notification]
The Court stated that when appeals are filed within the condonable period prescribed under Section 107(4), authorities must adopt a liberal approach in considering delay, unless negligence or mala fides are established.
Relying on precedents, including State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan and Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao, the supreme court Court noted that “sufficient cause” should be interpreted pragmatically to advance substantial justice. It said that “The expressions "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to a party.”
In addition, the High Court warned that appellate authorities “should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with the cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over jubilation of disposal drive.” Instead, a reasoned and speaking order is necessary.
The court, holding that the delay of 26 days was within condonable limits and properly explained, the delay was condoned and remitted the matter back to the Appellate Authority to be decided afresh on merits after affording a full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
