2024 (8) TMI 384 - HC - GST

Challenge to order dismissing appeal as barred by limitation - section 107 of CGST Act, 2017 and the Circular No. 148/04/2021-GST dated 18th May 2021 - HELD THAT - The legislative intentment in this regard is manifest in the provisions under Section 30 of the CGST Act. In the backdrop of such legislative intentment, the provisions under Section 107 of the CGST Act cannot be frustrated on mere technicalities. A right to appeal as provided under the statute must be decided on merits irrespective of some laches or delay on the part of the Assessee. This is by now too well-settled that the statutory provisions of limitation under Section 107 of the CGST Act would bind the statutory authority which cannot condone the delay except the circumstances envisaged thereunder but such limitations are not applied in a writ proceeding. The powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are founded on justice, equity and good conscience and are exercised for public good. This Court referred to the decision in ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) LTU, KAKINADA ORS. VERSUS M/S. GLAXO SMITH KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LIMITED 2020 (5) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court observed that if the Assessee did not avail the alternative remedy of statutory appeal even within the extended period of limitation by seeking condonation of delay then a writ petition shall not be entertained. The present writ petition is entertained and the order dated 13th June 2024 passed by the Joint Commissioner of CGST is quashed - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order dismissing appeal as barred by limitation under Section 107 of CGST Act, 2017.

Analysis:
The judgment concerned a writ petition challenging an order dismissing an appeal as time-barred under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Joint Commissioner of the CGST cited Section 107 and Circular No. 148/04/2021-GST, emphasizing the statutory time limit for filing appeals. Referring to a Kerala High Court decision, the Commissioner held that the appellate authority cannot condone delays beyond the specified period, strictly interpreting the statute. It was concluded that the CGST Act is a self-contained code excluding the application of the Limitation Act, and appeals must adhere to the prescribed time limits.

The Joint Commissioner reiterated that since the appeal was not filed within the stipulated time frame, it could not be decided on merits. Emphasizing compliance with Section 107(1) and 107(4) of the CGST Act, the appeal was dismissed as time-barred without delving into the substantive issues. The judgment highlighted the legislative intent behind the CGST Act, emphasizing that statutory appeal rights should not be frustrated by technicalities, and limitations under Section 107 must be strictly followed.

Regarding the writ petition, the Court considered the constitutional powers under Article 226, emphasizing justice and public good. Citing a previous decision, it was noted that failure to avail statutory remedies within the extended limitation period precludes entertaining a writ petition. However, the Court retained the writ petition, quashing the order and restoring the appeal subject to the petitioner fulfilling necessary requirements. Ultimately, the Court allowed the writ petition in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the order and reinstating the appeal with conditions for late fee and other deposits.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the stringent adherence to statutory time limits for appeals under the CGST Act, highlighting the importance of following prescribed procedures and timelines. The Court's decision balanced the need for compliance with statutory provisions while upholding principles of justice and fairness in considering the writ petition.