2018 (12) TMI 1005 - HC - GST

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - time limitation - Held that - The delay in filing the appeal may not be condoned beyond the period of one month from the expiry of period of limitation, the phrase communicated to such person appearing in Section 107(1) of the Act commend a construction that would imply that the order be necessarily brought to the knowledge of the person who is likely to be aggrieved. Unless such construction is offered, the right of appeal would itself be lost though a delay of more than a month would in all such cases be such as may itself not warrant such strict construction. It is largely undisputed that the impugned penalty order was served on the driver of the truck while the penalty order is directed against the owner of the goods. Therefore, for that reason also it may be accepted that the penalty order had not been communicated to the petitioner prior to the date 25.05.2018. The Appellate Authority may condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible - Petition allowed.

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 107(1) of the UP Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
2. Requirement of communication of penalty order to the aggrieved person for the purpose of filing an appeal.
3. Dispute regarding the communication of the penalty order to the petitioner.
4. Availability of the statutory forum for a second appeal under the Act.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with the interpretation of the period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 107(1) of the UP Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The court considers whether the petitioner would have a surviving right of appeal beyond 30 days from the date of the penalty order or from the date of service of that order on the driver of the truck transporting the goods. The court notes the language of Section 107(1) providing for a three-month limitation period from the date of communication of the order.

2. The issue of communication of the penalty order to the aggrieved person is crucial for filing an appeal. The court emphasizes that the order must be brought to the knowledge of the person likely to be aggrieved. The judgment highlights the importance of the phrase "communicated to such person" in Section 107(1) and stresses that the right of appeal should not be lost due to lack of communication, especially when a delay of more than a month may not warrant strict construction.

3. There is a dispute regarding the communication of the penalty order to the petitioner. The petitioner claims that the penalty order was not served on him by the Assessing Authority and was first communicated on a later date. The court acknowledges that the penalty order was served on the driver of the truck, not the owner of the goods, which supports the petitioner's argument that the order was not communicated to him in a timely manner.

4. The judgment also addresses the availability of the statutory forum for a second appeal under the Act. It is noted that the Tribunal has not been constituted under the Act, leading to the petitioner seeking recourse through a writ petition. The court sets aside the order dismissing the appeal as time-barred and directs the Appellate Authority to condone the delay and decide the appeal promptly.

In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the importance of timely communication of orders to aggrieved parties for the purpose of filing appeals and emphasizes the need for a practical interpretation of statutory provisions to ensure access to justice.

← Previous Next →