IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.36757 of 2025 M/s. Asstabhuja Engg. & Constructions … Petitioner Mr. Sidharth Shankar Padhy, Advocate -Versus-

The Commissioner, Commercial Tax & … Opposite Parties GST, Odisha and another Mr. Sunil Mishra, Standing Counsel for CT & GST Organisation CORAM:

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER

Order No. 08.01.2026

01. 1. Questioning the propriety of order dated 24.10.2025 rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal under Section 107 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Collectively, “the GST Act”), the petitioner has come up before this Court invoking provisions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. It is submitted by Sri Sidhartha Shankar Padhy, learned Advocate that the petitioner availing alternative remedy envisaged under the GST Act and rules framed thereunder challenged the order dated 08.05.2025 passed under Section 74 of the GST Act by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Cuttack-I West Circle, Cuttack for the tax periods 1^st April, 2019 to 31^st March, 2020. Having preferred appeal on

04.09.2025, there occurred a delay of 29 days in filing the appeal.

2.1. It is submitted that in compliance of notice dated 14.10.2025 mentioning therein that there being 29 days delay in preferring the appeal, the same would stand rejected under Section 107(4) of the GST Act, the petitioner filed an application on 17.10.2025 seeking condonation of delay enclosing therewith prescription issued by the Community Health Centre, Kaniha indicating ill-health and treatment of the proprietor. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the Authority concerned rejected such application on 24.10.2025 without considering the application for condonation of delay. Non-consideration of evidence adduced showing sickness enclosed to the application for condonation of delay by the appellate authority offends basic principles of natural justice. Therefore, he fervently urged to set aside the order of rejection.

3. The contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner was opposed by Sri Sunil Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the CT & GST Organisation by advancing argument that to question the order of rejection the petitioner has alternative remedy before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal. Hence, he urged not to entertain the writ petition.

4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

5. Perused the record.

5.1 Though there is merit in the contention of the learned Standing Counsel, since the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal has yet not been made functional, this Court feeling that no useful purpose would be subserved in the event the matter is kept pending or relegating the petitioner to approach the alternative forum, the present writ petition is entertained on the grounds and reasons stated infra.

5.2. In the impugned Order dated 24.10.2025 of the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Central Zone-I, Cuttack the reason assigned to reject the appeal is revealed as follows: “Whereas the Taxpayer has filed the appeal petition on 04.09.2025 against the Reference order No.AD2109250014893 dated 04.09.2025 thereby making a delay by 29 days, against which the he has been show caused vide this Office Notice No.ZD2110250091249 dated 14.10.2025 and asked to comply by 22.10.2025 but you have failed to comply the above objections. Hence, the application of the taxpayer for appeal is hereby rejected as per provisions of law.”

5.3. It is apparent from record that on receiving the show cause notice dated 14.10.2025 (Annexure-4), a petition for condonation of delay along with prescription showing ill- health at relevant point of time has been furnished and the acknowledgement receipt dated 17.10.2025 (Annexure-5) was issued. It is noticed from the said petition that the petitioner having received the order under Section 74 of the