2022 (12) TMI 1227 - HC - GST

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - three months prescribed period and one month condonable period vide Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 elapsed within Covid-19 period - HELD THAT - In identical circumstances, this Court had penned a judgment in THE GENERAL MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE PARK TOWN CHENNAI AND THE CHIEF ENGINEER/CENTRAL (CONSTRUCTION) N SOUTHERN RAILWAY PERIYAR E.V.R. HIGH ROAD EGMORE CHENNAI VERSUS EAGLE-OMEGA AND KR AND CO. (JV) REPRESENTED BY ITS LEAD PARTNER MR. C. KARNAN 2020 (10) TMI 1348 - MADRAS HIGH COURT wherein delay in filing an application under Section 34 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 left the protagonist of a Section 34 high and dry. Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it clear that what was extended by order of Hon'ble Supreme Court qua Covid-19 period was only the period of limitation and not the period upto which the delay can be condoned in exercise of discretion conferred by the Statute. Therefore, this Court in the light of the authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court, finds no grounds to interfere with the order of the first respondent. The argument that impugned order returns a finding in favour of writ petitioner but does not grant relief owing to limitation bar is no argument as law is well settled that when limitation elapses right is not extinguished but remedy is barred. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to an order of the Appellate Authority based on limitation in a refund claim under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis:

1. The main issue in this case pertains to a challenge against an order dated 26.08.2022, referred to as Order-in-Appeal No.87/2022-GST/GST (Appeals), made by the first respondent, the Appellate Authority, in an appeal against an order dated 29.03.2021 in a refund claim by the second respondent. The petitioner's counsel argued that while the impugned order favored the petitioner on merits, it was not granted due to being time-barred. The respondents' counsel accepted notice on behalf of both parties, and with their consent, the main writ petition was taken up for consideration.

2. The critical aspect of the case revolves around the limitation period under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the impact of the Covid-19 period on the computation of time. The original order by the second respondent was dated 29.03.2021, and the prescribed period along with the condonable period had elapsed during the Covid-19 period. The Suo Motu proceedings and orders by the Supreme Court extended the limitation period, allowing a 90-day window from 01.03.2022 for filing appeals. The appeal in this case was filed on 30.05.2022, one day beyond the extended period, leading to a contention on whether the filing was within the permissible time frame.

3. The legal arguments presented by both sides focused on the interpretation of the limitation provisions under the Limitation Act, 1963, specifically Sections 2(j) and 4. The Revenue counsel contended that the 90-day period from 01.03.2022 was a condonable period and not a prescribed period, emphasizing that filing on the next working day did not save the petitioner from the limitation bar. The court referred to previous judgments, including the Eagle-Omega case, to establish the principles governing the computation of time and the distinction between prescribed and condonable periods under different statutes.

4. Drawing parallels to the Sagufa Ahmed case, the court highlighted the Supreme Court's clarification that the extension granted during the Covid-19 period was limited to the period of limitation and did not extend to the discretion to condone delays as conferred by the statute. The court reiterated the principle that the law assists vigilant litigants and emphasized the importance of adhering to limitation periods. Ultimately, the court found no grounds to interfere with the Appellate Authority's order, dismissing the writ petition due to the limitation bar.

5. The judgment underscores the significance of understanding the nuances of limitation periods, distinguishing between prescribed and condonable periods, and the implications of extensions granted during extraordinary circumstances like the Covid-19 period. It serves as a reminder of the importance of diligence in legal proceedings and adherence to statutory timelines to avoid the risk of remedies being barred due to delays.