Case Details: R.P. Chemicals vs. Superintendent CGST and Central Excise (2026) 39 Centax 85 (Guj.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- A.S. Supehia & Pranav Trivedi, JJ.
- Shri Hardik V Vora, Adv., for the Petitioner.
- Ms Hetvi H Sancheti, Adv., for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner-assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority beyond the prescribed period of ninety days but within the additional condonable period of thirty days under Section 107 of the CGST Act and the Gujarat GST Act. It was contended that the original order was never communicated as the business premises were closed, and the assessee was subsequently informed telephonically by the GST Department to collect the Order-in-Original. The assessee’s accountant collected the order thereafter, and the appeal was filed. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal on the grounds of limitation and raised an objection to the manual filing. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that Section 107(4) confers discretion upon the Appellate Authority to condone delay of up to an additional one month if sufficient cause is shown for not presenting the appeal within the initial period. It observed that the expression ‘sufficient cause’ must receive a meaningful interpretation and that the Appellate Authority is required to apply its mind to the reasons assigned for delayed filing. The Court found that non-communication of the original order due to closure of business premises, followed by telephonic intimation for collection, satisfactorily explained the delay and fell within the ambit of sufficient cause. It further held that the objection regarding manual filing was untenable and could not defeat the statutory right of appeal when filed within the extended period. Accordingly, the impugned orders were quashed, and the matter was remanded for consideration on the merits.
