Gauhati High CourtTax LawAdministrative and Public Law

Daughter’s Rare Eye Treatment Helps Contractor Overcome 40-Day GST Appeal Delay; Gauhati HC Orders Merits Hearing

Bijit Hazarikav.The State Of Assam And 3 Ors

Daughter’s Rare Eye Treatment Helps Contractor Overcome 40-Day GST Appeal Delay; Gauhati HC Orders Merits Hearing. Bijit Hazarika vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors. Gauhati High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner established sufficient cause for the delay in filing his statutory appeal.

The court held

The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the appellate order rejecting the appeal on limitation grounds.

It also directed

It directed the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals), Guwahati, to decide the appeal on its merits, directed the parties to appear on 27 November 2026, and ordered the appellate authority to fix a hearing date and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.

No order as to costs was made.

01Facts

The petitioner, a registered GST taxpayer engaged in civil-contract work, challenged an order rejecting his appeal against a tax demand of Rs. 55,78,250.80 for FY 2023–24.

p. 3

The demand followed a show-cause notice issued under Section 73 of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

p. 3

The petitioner said he was unable to appeal within the prescribed three-month period because he was occupied with arranging treatment for his daughter, who had a rare degenerative eye disorder.

pp. 4–5

He filed an appeal with a pre-deposit of Rs. 2,34,666; the appellate authority rejected it as approximately 40 days late and beyond its power to condone.

p. 4

The judgment contains inconsistent dates for the impugned appellate order: paragraph 2 refers to 1 November 2025, while paragraphs 6 and 12–13 identify it as 8 May 2026.

pp. 3–4, 5–6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner established sufficient cause for the delay in filing his statutory appeal.

pp. 4–5

ii.2. Whether the appellate authority’s rejection of the appeal on limitation grounds should be set aside and the appeal heard on its merits.

pp. 5–6

03Law Applied

The underlying tax proceedings arose under Section 73 of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

p. 3

The judgment refers to a three-month period for filing the appeal and records that the appellate authority considered itself unable to condone the delay.

pp. 4–5

The Court applied the principles that a delay supported by sufficient cause may warrant relief in the interests of justice, particularly where the delay was not due to negligence or wilful default and hearing the appeal would cause no substantial prejudice to the respondents.

p. 5

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

ASSAM GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017 Section 73

04Reasoning

The Court accepted the petitioner’s explanation that his daughter’s serious eye condition and the steps required to secure her treatment prevented him from filing the appeal within time.

p. 5

It found the approximately 40-day delay neither negligent nor wilful and held that the petitioner had shown sufficient cause.

p. 5

Because hearing the appeal on its merits would cause no substantial prejudice or inconvenience to the respondents, the Court considered intervention appropriate.

pp. 5–6

05Holding

The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the appellate order rejecting the appeal on limitation grounds.

p. 6

It directed the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals), Guwahati, to decide the appeal on its merits, directed the parties to appear on 27 November 2026, and ordered the appellate authority to fix a hearing date and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.

p. 6

No order as to costs was made.

p. 6
Gauhati High Court

Original Court PDF

Bijit HazarikavsThe State Of Assam And 3 Ors

Gauhati High Court · November 06, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment