SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Ori) 506

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
K.R. Mohapatra, J.
M/s. Shree Jagannath Traders - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of State Tax Odisha, Cuttack & Ors. - Respondents
W. P. (C) No. 15061 of 2021
Decided On : 07-06-2021

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. V. Narasingh, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr.Sunil Kumar Mishra, for the Respondent.

The Court emphasized the need for a more liberal approach in condoning delays during the Covid-19 pandemic, ensuring that the interests of justice are not constrained by technical requirements.

Headnote:

The Adjudicating Authority passed an order on 18th August, 2020, and the last date for filing the appeal was 17th November, 2020. The Petitioner filed the appeal on 13th November, 2020, but could only furnish a certified copy of the order on 9th March, 2021. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal due to the delay in submitting the certified copy. The Court held that the delay should have been condoned due to the lawyer's self-quarantine and the restricted functioning of Courts and Tribunals during the Covid-19 pandemic. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored for consideration on merits.

Fact of the Case:

The Petitioner filed an appeal under the OGST Act, 2017, within the prescribed time but could not submit a certified copy of the order appealed against within the specified period due to Covid-19 related difficulties.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the delay in submitting the certified copy should have been condoned due to the Covid-19 related challenges faced by the Petitioner and their lawyer.

Issues: The main issue was whether the Appellate Authority was justified in dismissing the appeal due to the delay in submitting the certified copy of the order appealed against.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that a more liberal approach is warranted in matters of condonation of delay during the Covid-19 pandemic, and the interests of justice should not be constrained by a hyper-technical view of the requirement.

Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored for consideration on merits by the Appellate Authority.

ORDER

1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

2. The short point for determination in the present writ petition is whether the Appellate Authority under the OGST Act, 2017, was justified in dismissing the Petitioner's appeal, by the impugned order dated 10th March, 2021, on the grounds that the appeal was not presented within the time prescribed under law?

3. Notice. Mr. Sunil Kumar Mishra, Standing Counsel for the Revenue accepts notice for the Opposite Parties.

4. The basic facts are not in dispute. Admittedly, the Adjudicating Authority passed the impugned order on 18th August, 2020 and uploaded it on the same day. It is not also in dispute that the last date for the filing of the appeal against the said order was 17th November, 2020. It is further admitted that the Petitioner did, in fact, file the appeal on 13th November, 2020 electronically, accompanied by a downloaded copy of the order appealed against.

5. Under Rule 108 (3) of the OGST Rules, 2017, the appeal had to be accompanied by a certified copy of the order appealed against. This had to be submitted within seven days of the filing of the appeal. Under the proviso to Rule 108(3) if the certified copy is submitted within seven days of the filing of the appeal, then the date of filing of the appeal would be the date of the issue of the provisional acknowledgment. If it is filed after seven days, the date of filing of the appeal would be the date of submission of such certified copy.

6. As it transpires, in the present case, the Petitioner could furnish a certified copy of the order of appealed against only on 9th March, 2021, i.e., more than three months and 21 days after the filing of the appeal. According to the Appellate Authority, i.e., the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Balasore, this delay could not be condoned and, therefore, the appeal itself was dismissed as not having been preferred in time.

7. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. V. Narasingh, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Mishra learned counsel for the Revenue.

8. Section 107(1) and Section 107 (4) of the OGST Act, 2017, which are relevant for the present petition, read as under:

    'Section 107 (1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under the Odisha Goods and Service Tax Act by any adjudicating authority, may appeal to such appellate authority as may be prescribed within three months from the date on which the said decision or order is communicated to such person.

    Section 107 (4) The Appellate Authority may, if he is satisfied that, the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of three months or six months, as the case may be, allow it to be presented within a further period of one month.'

9. It is seen that the Appellant had to show the Appellate Authority 'the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within a period of three months from the date of the impugned order.' In the present case, it is not in dispute that the Petitioner in fact filed the appeal within a period of three months. It is only on the account of the appeal not being accompanied by the certified copy of the order appealed against, within a period of seven days, that it has been rejected on the ground of delay.

10. Mr. Narasingh, learned counsel for the Petitioner, points out that while the appeal was accompanied by the downloaded printed copy of the order appealed against at the time of filling of the appeal, it was not accompanied by the certified copy thereof at that stage since the Lawyer who had filed the appeal was in self quarantine as he had come into contact with a client who had tested positive for Covid-19.

11. The difficulties faced by lawyers and litigants in the Covid affected times, where the functioning of the Courts and Tribunals is limited in applying for and obtaining certified copies of orders is generally known. Acknowledging this reality, the explanation offered for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top