High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.of lndia praying that in the tiled therewith the High Court may be circumstances stated in ti" 'itiJ"'it oleased to issue a writ, ora"erl, oir""tio" more particular one in the nature of a action br Resoondent' No' 1 in rejectins ft;[;#ffi;-r; ;;"i;'i;;;;' Ji""' ''pliitiJn'"i"'io" nnrl AD360824004558W' Order "t the appeal filed bv ,n" No.2D3601250 1254BKo,t"O OA 0r-2025 on the ground that the appeal was filed *o-nt't from the date of receipt of with a delay of 12 days 'fi;';;;;;1r''"t order without considering i-n""ir"i-tut the said delav of 12 daYs was within condonable period of oo oavs eJen itrough the Petitioner demonstrated sufficient orounds which is il"g"r, liiiti";; Jffii olrylqes of natural Justice and in Yffilffi li'pit,[iJ;l,""i ;;;i;;;ro7 0f the csr Rct.zotz and in violation of i+ and 16 of the Constitution of lndia and set Petitioners rights guaranteJn't'"f " aside the same and *"""q,"tiiv oir."ti n"tpono"nt'No 2 to restore the apPeal file! by the Petitioner dt.12'08'2024 '- ?.::E -7 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed irr support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the proceedings issued by Respondent No.2 vide ARN AD360824004558W, Order No.ZD3601iL501254BK dated 08.01.2025 pending disposal ,cf the main Writ Petition, otherwise the Petitioner would be- put to severe loss and hardship Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SIRIPURAM KESHAVA Counselior the Respondents: SRI T. CHAITANYA KIRAN AGP REP., FOR SRI SWAROOP OOR|LLA Special Govt Pleader for State Tax The Court made the following: ORDER i /_l THE HON,BLE THE ACTING CIIIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION No.5299 of 2025 ORDER (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justicc Sujog Paul) Sri Siripuram Keshava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T. Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader represents Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, for the respondents

3. With the consent, frnally heard The challenge is mounted to the appellate order dated O8.O1.2O25 (Annexure-P1) whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the Assessment Order dated 30.O4.2024 was rejected. The appeal was admittedly preferred against the said order dated 3O.O4.2O24 on 12.08.2024. The initial period of limitation is 9O days, which is extendable by 30 days, as per Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act,2OI7 '

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the little delay of 12 days, which was within condonable period, was properly explained and there was no malice or attempt to take arly undue benefit. Thus, the application for condonation of 2 delay shouid have been dealt with leniently. He plac:ed reliance on Andhra Pradesh High Court order in W.p.No. IS49O of 2023 decided on 19.O7.2023.

5. The other side raised objection and submit.s that the appellate auth ority has rightly passed the impugned order.

6. 7 . We have considered the rival contentions. Admr.t:edly, the petitioner preferred the appeal within condonable perriod of limitation. The Apex Court culled out the principles for the purpose of considering an application for condonation ,tf delay which is considered by the Andhra pradesh High Court in W.P.No.1549O of 2023. The relevant portion reads thus: "9. The word 'sufhcient cause" as appearing in Sec tion lO7 @l of CGST Act, 2Ol7 for the purprose of seek.ng condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal) has been intcrpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the light of Section 5 of Limitation Act relating to Land Ar:cluisition Matter would guide the Court in de ciding the point. In Collector, Land Acquisition Vs, Mst. Katiji (AIR 1987 SC 1353). V/hile deciding application under Section 5 Lirriit.ation Act, "justice oriented approach" is re,quired to br: adopted. The expression 'sufficient calLse, is aclequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful marrner which subserve thr: ends of jr1s116. that being the life-purpose for the exirttence of tlet: institution of Courts. \ \ \ 3

10. Hon'ble Apex Court laid down the following principle to be followed while dealing with an application seeking condonation of delay:-

1. Ordinarily a litigant does not 'stald to benefit by lodging an aPPeal late.

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very ttrreshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

3. 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that a pedaltic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner'

4. When substantial justice ald technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for ttre other side cannot claim to have vested right rn injustice treing done because of a nondeliberate delaY.

5. There is no presumption that delay is on account of occasioned deliberately .or ce, or on account of mala culpable ne stard to benefrt by s not fides. A litiqant doe resortinqtod elav. In fact he runs a senous risk." (Emphasis SuPPlied) I I If we apply the said principles in the instant case, in our

8. view, a too technical view was taken by the learned appellate authority ald therefore, the impugned order deserves to be jettisoned. g. Resultantly, the impugned appellate order dated O8.O 1.2025 is set aside. The application for condonation of 4 t,.16.::. .'- t{:;r delay shall ber r,reated to be allowed. The appellate auttrority shall decide the app,eal on merits.

10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Interlc,cutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. SD/.A.V.S. PRASAD GISTRAR ASSIS /ffRUE COPY// OFFICER

1. The Principal lSecretary, Revenue (CT-ll) Dept' Secretariat Telangana' 2. The Appklate ,Joint commissioner of state Tax, Hyderabad Rural Division' ' Hfi ;56;i-ii'h ii;,. c.r'-Com[r"*' t't"rnpallv' Hvderabad' relansana' 3.TheAssistantCommissione(ST)'Ir/adhapurN3,Madhapur,Telangana. 4. One CC to litll SlRlPURAIvl KESHAVA Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to fiRl SWAROOP OORILLA Special Govt Pleader for State Tax' - 6. Two CD CoPies fiigh c"rrt f"i tn" Strt" of Telangana at Hyderabad' [oUT] : To, KS K B 6 I HIGH COURT DATED:2410212025 ORDER WP.No.5299 of 2025 Be S'1A, 1 & (: cJ3 04 V,tit'2:"ii1 ( * DgSpAT ar'c.l l * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I f I I I t I i II 03q0 W