2020 (10) TMI 1336 - HC - GST

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - petition rejected on the ground of the same having barred by limitation - HELD THAT - The undisputed factual matrix of the case is that the Adjudicating Authority had passed the order on 26.06.2019 there is no dispute so far as the order being communicated to the petitioner and as such the appeal ought to have been filed by 26.09.2019 that is three months period provided u/s 107 of the Chhattisgarh GST Act of 2017. The appeal in the instant case has been filed on 16.12.2019 that is even after the three months from the date limitation expired. Sub-section 4 of Section 107 of the Chhattisgarh GST Act confers the Appellate Authority with the power to condone the delay if the appeal is filed within a period of one month from the date limitation stood expired. The fact that there is an upper limit of one month provided in the statutes itself for preferring an appeal beyond the prescribed period of three months itself establishes the fact that beyond that extended period of one month after the expiry of period of limitation the Appellate Authority becomes functus officio and would not be in a position to entertain the appeal nor does he have the power to condone the delay. The issue so far as condonation of delay is concerned beyond the limit permissible under the statutes came up for consideration before the Supreme Court recently in the case of M/s N.V. International vs. State of Assam and others 2019 (12) TMI 1515 - SUPREME COURT . In the said judgment the Hon ble Supreme Court though under the provisions of Arbitration Act had considered the aspect whether the authority could condone the delay beyond the permissible period provided under the statutes disallowing the contention and dismissing the appeal observed that once when the period is prescribed beyond the said period the authority does not have the power to entertain the application for condoning the delay or else it will defeat the statutory purpose. This Court does not find a strong case made out by the counsel for the petitioner in the instant case calling for an interference to the order passed by the Respondent No. 3 - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order rejecting appeal under Chhattisgarh GST Act on grounds of limitation.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order rejecting their appeal under Section 107 of the Chhattisgarh GST Act, claiming GST Input Credit disallowed by the Adjudicating Authority. The appeal was rejected as it was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. The petitioner argued that due to their Chartered Accountant's ill health, the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated period. They sought a sympathetic consideration for the delay and requested a remittance for a review on merits. The State contended that the Appellate Authority lacked the power to entertain appeals filed beyond the extended period for condonation of delay. The State emphasized the statutory limitation of three months for filing an appeal, with an additional one-month period for condonation, beyond which the appeal cannot be entertained.

The High Court noted that the order was passed on 26.06.2019, and the appeal should have been filed by 26.09.2019, as per Section 107 of the Chhattisgarh GST Act. However, the appeal was filed on 16.12.2019, beyond the prescribed period. The Court highlighted that the Appellate Authority could condone the delay only if the appeal was filed within one month from the expiry of the limitation period. Referring to recent Supreme Court judgments, the Court emphasized that statutory provisions set limits for condonation of delay to prevent abuse of process. The Court cited cases where the Supreme Court held that the Appellate Authority cannot condone delays beyond the stipulated period, even in exceptional circumstances.

The Court rejected the petitioner's plea for interference, citing the Supreme Court's authoritative decisions. It emphasized that the High Court cannot disregard statutory limitation periods for redressal of grievances. The Court concluded that no strong case was made out by the petitioner for interference in the order rejecting the appeal. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.