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. 3The demand followed a show-cause notice issued under Section 73 of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
p. 3The 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. 4–5He 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. 4The 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, 5–602Issues
i.1. Whether the petitioner established sufficient cause for the delay in filing his statutory appeal.
pp. 4–5ii.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. 5–603Law Applied
The underlying tax proceedings arose under Section 73 of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
p. 3The 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. 4–5The 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. 5Provisions 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. 5It found the approximately 40-day delay neither negligent nor wilful and held that the petitioner had shown sufficient cause.
p. 5Because hearing the appeal on its merits would cause no substantial prejudice or inconvenience to the respondents, the Court considered intervention appropriate.
pp. 5–605Holding
The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the appellate order rejecting the appeal on limitation grounds.
p. 6It 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. 6No order as to costs was made.
p. 6Original Court PDF
Bijit HazarikavsThe State Of Assam And 3 Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
