2024 (4) TMI 1215 - HC - GST

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - applicability of provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 which allow for the condonation of delay - HELD THAT - According to Section 107(4) of the Act the Appellate Authority may if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of three months or six months as the case may be allow it to be presented within a further period of one month. The Hon ble Division Bench in S. K. Chakraborty Sons 2023 (12) TMI 290 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT considered the above issue and held that the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 has not been expressly or impliedly excluded by Section 107 of the Act of 2017 and by virtue of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands attracted - The Court clearly held that the prescribed period under the Act of 2017 is not final and in given facts and circumstances of a case the period for filing the appeal can be extended by the appellate authority. Conclusion - The provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 has not been expressly or impliedly excluded by Section 107 of the Act of 2017 and by virtue of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands attracted. Petition disposed off.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions addressed in this judgment are:

Whether the petitioner can file an appeal beyond the prescribed period under the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax (WBGST) Act, 2017.
Whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allow for the condonation of delay, are applicable to appeals under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017.
Whether the stay order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court affects the applicability of the Division Bench's judgment in similar cases.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Filing an Appeal Beyond the Prescribed Period

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 107(1) of the WBGST Act, 2017 allows an aggrieved person to appeal within three months from the date of communication of the decision. Section 107(4) permits the Appellate Authority to extend this period by one additional month if sufficient cause for delay is shown.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court acknowledged that the prescribed period under the WBGST Act is not absolute and can be extended under certain circumstances.
Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner's reliance on previous judgments and the delay in filing the appeal were considered.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the provisions of the WBGST Act and considered the potential for delay condonation based on the petitioner's circumstances.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents argued that the Division Bench's order was stayed by the Supreme Court, suggesting it should not be followed. However, the court clarified that the stay does not nullify the precedent set by the Division Bench.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the appellate authority should consider the delay condonation application on its merits.

Issue 2: Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 5 of the Limitation Act allows for the condonation of delay if sufficient cause is shown. The Division Bench in S. K. Chakraborty & Sons held that this section is applicable to the WBGST Act by virtue of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court agreed with the Division Bench's interpretation that Section 5 is applicable, as it is not expressly or impliedly excluded by the WBGST Act.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court considered the Division Bench's reasoning and the absence of express exclusion of Section 5 in the WBGST Act.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied this legal reasoning to the petitioner's case, supporting the possibility of delay condonation.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents' argument regarding the stay was addressed, with the court emphasizing the binding nature of the Division Bench's decision unless overturned.
Conclusions: The court concluded that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies, allowing for the possibility of delay condonation.

Issue 3: Effect of the Supreme Court's Stay Order

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The court referenced the case of Pijush Kanti Chowdhury, which clarified that a stay order does not equate to a declaration of law and is binding only on the parties involved.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court held that the Division Bench's decision remains binding unless set aside, and the stay does not prevent the appellate authority from considering the delay condonation application.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court examined the implications of the stay order and its limited effect on the binding nature of the Division Bench's decision.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied this principle to affirm that the appellate authority could proceed with the petitioner's application.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents' reliance on the stay was countered by the court's clarification of its limited effect.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the stay order does not impede the appellate authority's ability to decide the matter on its merits.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "The provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has not been expressly or impliedly excluded by Section 107 of the Act of 2017 and by virtue of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands attracted."
Core Principles Established: The applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to the WBGST Act, the non-nullifying effect of a stay order, and the discretionary power of the appellate authority to condone delays.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court directed the appellate authority to consider the petitioner's delay condonation application on its merits, unaffected by the Supreme Court's stay order.

In summary, the judgment clarifies the applicability of delay condonation provisions under the WBGST Act and the limited effect of stay orders on binding precedents, ultimately directing the appellate authority to assess the petitioner's application on its merits.

← Previous Next →