IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 101 CWP-5258-2025 (O&M) CWP-5282-2025 (O&M) M/s GK Housing & Developers Private Ltd. vs. State of Punjab and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present: Mr. Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab. *** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral) 1. Prayer made in the present petition for quashing the orders dated 04.01.2024, 17.07.2024 and 18.09.2024 (Annexures P4 to P 2. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had filed an appeal challenging the order, months, however, the Appellate Authority has rejected the same ground of it bei merits of the case, review whereof was also dismissed on maintainability 3. A worthwhile reference can be made to Living Media India Ltd Court observed that, “Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopt substantial justice…” 4. In (1998) 9 SCC 716, the appeal was allowed setting aside all the orders of the appellate and revisional authority as also the High Court and the matter was remanded for fresh decision on merits after hearing the parties and observed that even though the a filed the appeal against the order after a was to consider the same on merits but it had been dismissed solely on the basis of delay. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 09.07.2025 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) M/s GK Housing & Developers Private Ltd. vs. State of Punjab and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab. *** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral) Prayer made in the present petition for quashing the orders dated 04.01.2024, 17.07.2024 and 18.09.2024 (Annexures P4 to P Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had filed an appeal challenging the order, along with application for condonation of delay of 4 months, however, the Appellate Authority has rejected the same being time barred without referring to the same merits of the case, review whereof was also dismissed on maintainability. A worthwhile reference can be made to Living Media India Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 563, wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court observed that, “Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopt substantial justice…” n Mahadeo Vithoba Nikam vs. Gajanan Pandurang Kulkarni (1998) 9 SCC 716, the appeal was allowed setting aside all the orders of the appellate and revisional authority as also the High Court and the matter was remanded for fresh decision on merits after hearing the parties and observed that even though the appellant was not present before the Additional Tehsildar and filed the appeal against the order after a significant delay, the Appellate Authority was to consider the same on merits but it had been dismissed solely on the basis IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 09.07.2025 M/s GK Housing & Developers Private Ltd. vs. State of Punjab and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab. Prayer made in the present petition for quashing the orders dated 04.01.2024, 17.07.2024 and 18.09.2024 (Annexures P4 to P6, respectively). Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had filed an appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 4 months, however, the Appellate Authority has rejected the same merely on the without referring to the same or dealing with t merits of the case, review whereof was also dismissed on account of its non A worthwhile reference can be made to Postmaster General vs. 3 SCC 563, wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court observed that, “Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance Mahadeo Vithoba Nikam vs. Gajanan Pandurang Kulkarni (1998) 9 SCC 716, the appeal was allowed setting aside all the orders of the appellate and revisional authority as also the High Court and the matter was remanded for fresh decision on merits after hearing the parties and observed that ppellant was not present before the Additional Tehsildar and significant delay, the Appellate Authority was to consider the same on merits but it had been dismissed solely on the basis Prayer made in the present petition for quashing the orders dated Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had filed an appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 4 merely on the dealing with the account of its non- Postmaster General vs. 3 SCC 563, wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court observed that, “Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction ed to advance Mahadeo Vithoba Nikam vs. Gajanan Pandurang Kulkarni, (1998) 9 SCC 716, the appeal was allowed setting aside all the orders of the appellate and revisional authority as also the High Court and the matter was remanded for fresh decision on merits after hearing the parties and observed that ppellant was not present before the Additional Tehsildar and significant delay, the Appellate Authority was to consider the same on merits but it had been dismissed solely on the basis ASHOK KUMAR 2025.07.11 15:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5258-2025 -2- 5. The Appellate Authority in the case of Arvind Gupta vs. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue State Taxes WPA-2904-2023 dated 04.01.2024, had rejected the appeal on the ground of there being no provision under the GST Act for condoning the delay beyond four months, which was set aside by the High Court and it was directed to decide the same on merits. 6. It was incumbent upon the Appellate Authority to have, at the least considered the reasons, projected that caused the delay and examined the sufficiency thereof, likewise was it imperative for it to view the merits of the appeal, rather than axing it on account of delay alone, notably it being a substantive right. Even for this Court to have a holistic view, it would have been better that there was an application of mind by an authority higher than the one which was appealed against, reflected through an order. Moreso, the petitioner would stand to gain nothing by delaying filing it. 7. It is trite that the cause of justice deserves to be preferred, when pitted against technical considerations. As such, a pragmatic approach instead of pedantic must be adopted. 8. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders dated 17.07.2024 and 18.09.2024 (Annexures P5 & P6, respectively) are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority, for deciding it afresh, in accordance with law, within a period of four months, granting to the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. 9. The present petition is disposed of accordingly. 10. Photocopy of this order be placed on the connected file. ( AMAN CHAUDHARY ) 09.07.2025 JUDGE ashok Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No ASHOK KUMAR 2025.07.11 15:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document