9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (10) TMI 284 - HC - GSTTime limitation - Dismissal of appeal of petitioner on the ground of limitation - difference between the GSTR-1 and GSTR-9C - HELD THAT - It is admitted fact that the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the notification dated 02.11.2023. On close scrutiny of the said notification, it is clear that if taxable person could not file appeal against the order passed by the Proper Officer on or before 31.03.2023 under sections 73 or 74 of the GST Act and if the appeal is preferred on or before 31.01.2024, the same will be considered on merit without taking recourse to the limitation. In the case in hand, the impugned order has been passed on 20.07.2023, much after the date mentioned in the aforesaid notification, i.e., 31.03.2023. Therefore, the said notification is of no aid to the petitioner. In M/s Yadav Steels 2024 (2) TMI 1069 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT , it has been specifically held that delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned beyond the prescribed period of limitation in the Act. This Court does not find any merit in these writ petitions - Petition dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to impugned orders based on limitation under GST Act. Analysis: The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the orders passed by the respondents on the ground of limitation. The petitioner contended that the impugned orders were passed without observing the mandatory requirement of proving an intention to evade tax willfully as per section 74 of the GST Act. The petitioner also relied on a notification providing relaxation for filing appeals beyond the prescribed time limit, arguing that the appeal was filed within the extended period. However, the respondent argued that the appeal was filed beyond the limitation period under section 107 of the GST Act and cited judgments supporting the dismissal of appeals for delay. The Court examined the records and noted that the impugned order was passed after the deadline mentioned in the notification relied upon by the petitioner, rendering the notification inapplicable. The Court further analyzed the judgments cited by both parties, emphasizing the special nature of tax statutes like the GST Act, which operate as self-contained codes with specific limitation provisions. The Court referred to various judgments, including those from the Supreme Court and other High Courts, to establish that the GST Act excludes the application of general limitation provisions like Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court highlighted the importance of limitation provisions in tax laws to ensure timely resolution of disputes and efficient tax administration. It also clarified that the appellate authority under the GST Act can only allow a limited extension of one month beyond the prescribed period, which was not applicable in the present case due to the delay in filing the appeal. In conclusion, the Court held that the delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned beyond the prescribed period of limitation under the GST Act. Citing the law laid down in previous judgments, the Court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed the same. The judgment reiterated the significance of limitation provisions in taxing statutes like the GST Act to expedite the resolution of tax-related matters and maintain fiscal stability.
|
