2021 (12) TMI 775 - HC - GST

Maintainability of appeal - appeal was dismissed on the ground of time limitation - Section 107 of The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - The facts indicate that the third respondent had passed an order dated 15.06.2020 at the time when lock down was clamped on account of the out break of Covid-19 pandemic. The petitioner has filed an appeal on 05.11.2020. After the appeal was filed, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further extended a period of limitation vide order dated 08.03.2021 and 23.09.2021. The second respondent ought to have taken note of the same and numbered the appeal and taken up the appeal for final hearing. This writ petition stands allowed by directing the second respondent to take up the appeal filed by the petitioner and consider the same in accordance with law and on merits within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order on grounds of limitation under Section 107 of The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Implementation of orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court during the Covid-19 period; Extension of limitation period by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; Failure to consider the impact of Covid-19 on appeal timelines.

Analysis:

The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 13.01.2021, where the second respondent dismissed the appeal citing limitation under Section 107 of The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The appellant argued that the appeal was filed beyond the statutory time limit, but referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision on extending limitation periods during the Covid-19 period. The respondent had not received instructions on this matter. The judge considered the Supreme Court's orders of 08.03.2021 and 23.09.2021, noting that the appeal was filed during the Covid-19 lockdown. The judge also referred to a Circular dated 20.07.2021, extending timelines for appeals based on the Supreme Court's orders.

The judge found that the second respondent should have considered the extensions granted by the Supreme Court and proceeded with the appeal. The judge allowed the writ petition, directing the second respondent to consider the appeal within sixty days from the date of the order, in accordance with the law and on merits. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.