9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (10) TMI 1168 - HC - GSTDismissal of appeal of the 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 the case of 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 petition - Petition dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to orders dated 08.12.2023 and 25.06.2024 dismissing appeal on grounds of limitation. Analysis: The petitioner challenged orders dated 08.12.2023 and 25.06.2024, dismissing the appeal due to limitation. The petitioner argued that the impugned order lacked evidence of willful tax evasion as required by section 74 of the GST Act. Additionally, the petitioner relied on a notification from 02.11.2023, allowing appeals filed by 31.01.2024 to be considered on merit without limitation. However, the Court noted that the impugned order was passed on 20.07.2023, before the notification's cutoff date of 31.03.2023, rendering it inapplicable in this case. The respondent supported the dismissal, citing the appeal was filed beyond the limitation period and delay cannot be condoned beyond the prescribed time. The Court examined the notification and precedent cases, concluding that the petitioner's reliance on the notification and a previous judgment was misplaced. The Court referenced various judgments emphasizing that the GST Act is a self-contained code with its limitation provisions, excluding the application of the Limitation Act. The Court highlighted that Section 107 of the GST Act specifies a limitation period for filing appeals, aiming to expedite tax dispute resolution and ensure efficient tax administration. The judgment emphasized the significance of limitation in tax statutes to prevent undue delays, promote fairness, and provide legal certainty. It further clarified that the GST Act operates as a complete code, excluding general limitation provisions like Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court rejected the petitioner's arguments, emphasizing that delay in filing appeals cannot be condoned beyond the prescribed limitation period. Referring to previous judgments, the Court upheld the dismissal of the writ petition, citing the specific limitation provisions of the GST Act and the exclusion of general limitation provisions. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
|
