9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 1041 - HC - GSTTime limitation of appeal - Whether the appeal filed by the Petitioner under Section 107 of the UPGST Act was within the statutory time limit? - HELD THAT - Limitation provisions in the UPGST Act set clear timelines for various actions, such as filing returns, making payments, or initiating appeal. By imposing time limits on actions, limitation provisions discourage delay and procrastination. Taxpayers are incentivized to fulfil their obligations promptly, which contributes to the smooth functioning of the tax administration system. Limitation provisions ensure equal treatment of taxpayers by establishing uniform deadlines for compliance. This prevents unfair advantages for non-compliant taxpayers and promotes a level playing field in the taxation process. It is evident that that the petitioner received the order in original on July 12, 2022 and filed the appeal on November 10, 2022. In light of the same, three months period would have begun on July 13, 2022 and expired on October 12, 2022 and the extended period would have expired on November 12, 2022. In light of the same, it appears that the calculation done by the authorities below is incorrect which warrants the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The presence of errors apparent on record provides a valid ground for the exercise of writ jurisdiction by the courts. When administrative authorities commit mistakes that are evident from the records of the case, aggrieved parties have the right to seek judicial intervention to rectify such errors and ensure justice. This Court directs the first appellate authority to allow the delay in filing the appeal and thereafter hear the appeal on merits and decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before it. Application disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appeal filed by the Petitioner u/s 107 of the UPGST Act was within the statutory time limit. Summary: Issue 1: Whether the appeal filed by the Petitioner u/s 107 of the UPGST Act was within the statutory time limit. 1. The petitioner challenged the orders dated April 19, 2022, July 12, 2022, and November 24, 2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Agra, and the first appellate authority, respectively. The appeal was dismissed as time-barred. 2. The primary issue for consideration was whether the appeal filed u/s 107 of the UPGST Act was within the statutory time limit. 3. Section 107(1) of the UPGST Act allows an appeal to be filed within three months from the date the decision or order is communicated. Section 107(4) permits an additional one-month extension if sufficient cause is shown. 4. Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, was referenced to compute the limitation period, excluding the day the order is communicated and including the last day of the period. 5. The term "within" includes the entire specified period, and "month" refers to a calendar month, ending on the corresponding date in the subsequent month. 6. The calculation of the three-month period starts the day after the order is communicated. For example, if communicated on January 1, the period starts on January 2 and ends on April 1. 7. If the initial three-month period is missed, an extension of one month can be sought, starting the day after the initial period ends. 8. The Supreme Court's judgment in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Himachal Techno Engineers clarified that the period prescribed as "three months" ends on the corresponding date in the third month. 9. The petitioner received the order on July 12, 2022, and filed the appeal on November 10, 2022. The three-month period began on July 13, 2022, and ended on October 12, 2022, with the extended period ending on November 12, 2022. 10. The authorities incorrectly calculated the limitation period, treating four months as 120 days, leading to the erroneous dismissal of the appeal. 11. The court exercised its writ jurisdiction due to the factual errors apparent on the record, quashing the order dated November 24, 2022, and directing the first appellate authority to hear the appeal on merits within two months. 12. The writ application was disposed of with no order as to costs.
|
