Authorities must decide delay-condonation applications solely on the justification for the delay.

The petitioner filed an application dated 06.10.2025 seeking condonation of delay in filing an application for revocation of cancellation of its GST registration.

A show-cause notice dated 17.10.2025 required the petitioner to appear for personal hearing on 24.10.2025 at 11:30 a.m.

The petitioner submitted a reply explaining the delay and produced medical papers and documents concerning his daughter’s engagement.

However, before the scheduled hearing date, the respondent authority rejected the condonation application on merits by order dated 21.10.2025.

The petitioner’s statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was also dismissed on merits by order dated 07.01.2026.

The respondents did not dispute these factual circumstances.

Whether the respondent authority could reject the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay on merits before the date fixed for personal hearing in the show-cause notice?

Whether the appellate authority could adjudicate the merits of the application for condonation of delay instead of confining its consideration to the justification for the delay?

Whether the impugned orders and show-cause notice were liable to be quashed, with liberty to the authorities to issue a fresh notice and decide the condonation application afresh?

The competent authority must confine its examination to the explanation and justification furnished for the delay and cannot determine the merits of the underlying revocation application while deciding condonation.

The Court also applied the principle that an authority cannot pass an adverse order before the date fixed by its own show-cause notice for appearance and personal hearing.

The petitioner’s appeal was considered under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; however, the appellate authority was likewise required to address the legally relevant question of delay and its justification rather than the merits of the revocation claim.

The Court found that the authority had fixed 24.10.2025 as the date for personal hearing but rejected the application on 21.10.2025, thereby deciding the matter before the scheduled opportunity of hearing had arisen.

Further, the authority rejected the application on merits, although the petitioner’s request was confined to condonation of delay and was supported by medical and other documents explaining that delay.

The appellate authority compounded the error by dismissing the appeal on the merits instead of examining only whether the petitioner had sufficiently justified the delay.

On these grounds, the Court held that the departmental approach was illegal and that the impugned proceedings could not be sustained.

The Court quashed and set aside the order dated 21.10.2025, the appellate order dated 07.01.2026, and the show-cause notice dated 17.10.2025.

The authorities were permitted to issue a fresh show-cause notice within two weeks, after which the petitioner was directed to cooperate and the competent authority was directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law within four weeks.

The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue appropriate proceedings if an adverse order was subsequently passed.

Rule was made absolute accordingly.