9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 443 - HC - GSTAppeal barred by time limitation - applicability of circular No.148/04/2021- GST dated 18th May 2021 - HELD THAT - The powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are founded on justice, equity and good conscience and are exercised for public good. The Revenue has referred to a decision of this Court in Ashok Varandan Vs. Central Baurd of Indirect Taxes and Customs Ors. 2024 (3) TMI 1085 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT to submit that in view of the express bar of limitation under Section 107 of the CGST Act the present writ petition is not maintainable. In this context, it is indicated that the issue in Ashok Varandani pertained to filing of statutory return in form GSTR/3B and connected issues. 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. Quite apparently, the language employed in Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited reflects that the Court has ample powers to condone the delay in preferring the appeal. The present writ petition is entertained and the order dated 11th June 2024 passed by the Joint Commissioner of CGST is quashed - petition allowed.
Issues:
Challenge to order dismissing appeal as barred by limitation under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. Analysis: The writ petition challenged the order dismissing the appeal as time-barred under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Joint Commissioner of the CGST relied on Section 107 and circular No.148/04/2021-GST, stating that appeals filed beyond the prescribed period cannot be entertained. Referring to a Kerala High Court decision, it was emphasized that the appellate authority cannot condone delays beyond the specified period. The CGST Act is considered a special statute with its own mechanism, excluding the application of the Limitation Act. The Joint Commissioner concluded that since the appeal was not filed within the specified time limit, adjudication on merits was precluded. Regarding the merit of the case, the Joint Commissioner held that the appeal was not filed within the prescribed time limit as per Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, thus rendering it time-barred. The authority stated that appeals filed beyond the time limit cannot be allowed, emphasizing the strict interpretation of fiscal statutes. The legislative intent behind the CGST Act is to facilitate commercial activities, and appeals should be decided on merits despite delays. The statutory provisions of limitation under Section 107 bind the authority, and limitations are not applicable in writ proceedings. The powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are based on justice and equity, exercised for public good. Referring to a previous decision, it was noted that a writ petition may not be entertained if the statutory appeal remedy was not availed within the extended period. The court has the power to condone delays in preferring appeals. Consequently, the writ petition was entertained, and the order dismissing the appeal was quashed, restoring the appeal subject to the petitioner fulfilling certain requirements. In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order dismissing the appeal as time-barred under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The court emphasized the importance of deciding appeals on merits despite technicalities and delays, exercising its powers under Article 226 to ensure justice and equity.
|
