9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 965 - HC - GSTMaintainability of petitioner's appeal - petitioner s appeal declined to be maintained on the ground that it was barred by limitation - Section 100 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - In terms of Section 100(2) of the Act, an appeal to the Appellate Authority is required to be filed within a period of thirty days from the date on which the ruling sought to be appealed against is communicated to the aggrieved party - In the present case, there is no dispute that the order dated 28.06.2019, passed by the Delhi Authority for Advance Ruling was promptly communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner had filed an appeal on 14.02.2020, which was beyond the period of thirty days as stipulated under Section 100(2) of the Act. The proviso to Section 100(2) of the Act makes it clear that the Appellate Authority can extend the stipulated period of thirty days for filing the appeal if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by a sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the said period. However, the power of the Appellate Authority is confined to extending the said period by a further period not extending thirty days. Thus, in any event, the Appellate Authority did not have the power to entertain the appeal beyond a period of sixty days from the date of the communication of the order passed by the Appellate Authority - Since the appeal was filed on 14.02.2020, which is also beyond the period of sixty days from the date on which the petitioner received the order dated 28.06.2019 or from the date it became aware of the constitution of the Appellate Authority, the delay is in excess of the period that could be condoned by the appellant. In STATE OF GOA VERSUS WESTERN BUILDERS 2006 (7) TMI 581 - SUPREME COURT and CHHATTISGARH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VERSUS CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION AND OTHERS 2010 (4) TMI 1031 - SUPREME COURT , the Supreme Court had considered similar provisions where the power of the concerned authority court to extend limitation was limited to a specified period, albeit in the context of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Electricity Act, 2003. The Court had held that given the language of the relevant provision limiting the period for which delay could be condoned, the period of limitation for filing the application / appeal could not be extended beyond the said period. There are no fault in the decision of the Appellate Authority in declining to entertain the petitioner s appeal under Section 100 of the Act - petition dismissed.
Issues:
The judgment involves the issue of appeal to the Appellate Authority under Section 100 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the limitation period for filing such an appeal. Issue 1: Appeal to Appellate Authority The petitioner challenged an order dated 23.05.2022, passed by the Delhi Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, which rejected the petitioner's appeal against an order dated 28.06.2019 by the Delhi Authority for Advance Ruling. The Appellate Authority refused to entertain the appeal citing it was time-barred. Details: - Section 100 of the Act provides for the appeal process to the Appellate Authority within thirty days from the communication of the ruling. - The petitioner filed the appeal on 14.02.2020, beyond the stipulated thirty days. - The petitioner claimed the delay was due to not being aware of the constitution of the Appellate Authority until November 2019. - The Appellate Authority can extend the filing period by a maximum of thirty days if sufficient cause is shown. - Citing precedents, the Court emphasized the limitation on extending the filing period beyond what is specified in the law. - The Court upheld the Appellate Authority's decision to reject the appeal due to the delay. Outcome: The petition was dismissed by the Court, affirming the decision of the Appellate Authority to decline the petitioner's appeal under Section 100 of the Act.
|
