2024 (5) TMI 315 - HC - GST

Condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the appellate authority - Appeal u/s 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017 - appellate authority failed to exercise jurisdiction in rejecting the application for condonation of delay, inter alia, on the ground that the same was filed beyond one month from the prescribed period of limitation, as provided in Section 107(4) of the said Act - HELD THAT - An identical issue had fell for consideration before the Hon ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.K. Chakraborty Sons 2023 (12) TMI 290 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT . The Division Bench of this Court, while considering the scope and ambit of Section 107 of the said Act and the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 on the basis of the provisions contained in Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act 1963 and by placing reliance on the judgment delivered by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case Superintending Engineer/Dehar Power House Circle Bhakra Beas Management Board (PW) Slapper and another versus Excise and Taxation Officer Sunder Nagar/Assessing Authority 2019 (11) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT , had concluded that in absence of non obstante clause rendering Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act 1963, non-applicable and in absence of specific exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, it would be improper to read implied exclusion thereof. Having regard to the above, in my view the appellate authority is not denude of its power to condone the delay beyond one month from the prescribed period of limitation as provided for in Section 107(4) of the said Act. The appellate authority had failed to exercise jurisdiction in refusing to entertain the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, since the same was filed beyond one month, beyond the prescribed period of Limitation as provided for in Section 107(4) of the said Act. The explanation provided by the petitioner in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation act is satisfactory and delay has been sufficiently explained. Having regard thereof the delay in preferring the appeal under Section 107 of the said Act is condoned and appeal is restored to its original file and number. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to refusal of appellate authority to condone delay in maintaining appeal u/s 107 of WBGST Act, 2017.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Refusal to Condone Delay
The petitioner challenged the refusal of the appellate authority to condone the delay in maintaining the appeal u/s 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017. The petitioner had filed an appeal beyond the limitation period, accompanied by an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The appellate authority rejected the application for condonation of delay, leading to the disposal of the appeal. The petitioner argued that the appellate authority failed to exercise its jurisdiction, contending that there is no implied bar in the Act from condoning the delay beyond the prescribed period. The petitioner relied on a judgment emphasizing the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Issue 2: Applicability of Limitation Provisions
The State respondents argued that the appellate authority does not have the power to condone the delay beyond the prescribed period provided in the Act, as it is a self-contained code excluding the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. They cited a judgment emphasizing that the GST Act embodies specific limitation provisions, excluding general provisions like Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Judgment Summary:
The Hon'ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury considered the legal issue of whether the appellate authority had failed to exercise jurisdiction in rejecting the application for condonation of delay beyond the prescribed period. Referring to previous judgments, it was concluded that the appellate authority is not devoid of power to condone the delay beyond the prescribed period. Another Division Bench held that the statute does not prohibit the appellate authority from exercising jurisdiction beyond the limitation period. The judgment from the Allahabad High Court was deemed unpersuasive. Consequently, the order refusing to condone the delay was set aside, and the appeal was restored, directing the appellate authority to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits within a month without unnecessary adjournments. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, with parties instructed to act based on the official copy of the order.