2024 (6) TMI 1075 - HC - GST

Challenge to appellate orders - declining to receive appeals filed by the petitioner as being barred by limitation - appeal rejected as being beyond the period of limitation prescribed in Section 107 of applicable GST enactments - HELD THAT - The impugned appellate orders indicate that appeals were filed about 21 to 24 days beyond the period for which appeal could be condoned by the appellate authority. The petitioner has explained the reasons for such delay by pointing out that rectification petitions were filed and that appeals were filed shortly after such rectification petitions were rejected. The petitioner has remitted 10% of the disputed tax demand and, in addition, a sum of Rs. 1,26,02,698.80 was appropriated from the bank account of the petitioner towards the tax demand. In these circumstances, these are appropriate cases in which the appellate authority should be directed to receive and dispose of the appeals on merits. The impugned appellate orders are quashed and the appellate authority is directed to receive and dispose of the appeals presented by the petitioner on merits without going into the question of limitation. Since a sum of Rs. 1,26,02,698.80 was appropriated pursuant to the bank attachment, the said bank attachment shall stand raised. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge of appellate orders for being barred by limitation.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged appellate orders declining to receive appeals as being beyond the period of limitation. Assessment orders were issued against the petitioner, and rectification petitions were filed within the prescribed period. However, the rectification petitions were rejected, leading to the filing of appeals before the appellate authority. The appeals were rejected as being beyond the limitation period prescribed in the GST enactments.

The petitioner argued that the rectification petitions were filed in time, and the appeals were submitted soon after the rejection of the rectification petitions. The petitioner also highlighted the appropriation of a significant sum from their bank account towards the tax demand. The Government Advocate representing the respondents acknowledged the situation but stated that the appeals were rejected due to being presented beyond the prescribed period in the GST enactments.

The court noted that the appeals were filed slightly beyond the condonable period, with the petitioner explaining the delay by referencing the rectification petitions. Considering the circumstances, including the remittance of a portion of the disputed tax demand and the bank account appropriation, the court directed the appellate authority to receive and decide on the appeals without considering the question of limitation. The court also ordered the raising of the bank attachment and allowed the petitioner to seek a refund through an appropriate application.

In conclusion, the court quashed the impugned appellate orders and directed the appellate authority to process the appeals on their merits without delving into the limitation issue. The bank attachment was lifted, and the petitioner was permitted to seek a refund through the proper channels. The writ petitions were disposed of with no costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.