9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 541 - HC - GSTRejection of appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext.P1 order on the ground that it was barred by limitation under the provisions of Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax/State Goods and Services Tax Acts 2017 - HELD THAT - The issue stands covered in favour of the petitioner by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Himachal Techno Engineers 2010 (7) TMI 875 - SUPREME COURT where while considering the question of whether an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 had been filed within time the Supreme Court held that when the period prescribed is three months (as contrasted from 90 days) from a specified date the said period would expire in the third month on the date corresponding to the date upon which the period starts. As a result depending upon the months it may mean 90 days or 91 days or 92 days or 89 days . Conclusion - The appeal presented by the petitioner against Ext.P1 order on 06-11-2023 was within the condonable period mentioned in Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Acts. Petition allowed.
The petitioner appealed against Ext.P1 order, which was rejected by Ext.P3 order of the First Appellate Authority on the grounds of being time-barred under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax/State Goods and Services Tax Acts, 2017 (CGST/SGST Acts). The core issue in this case was whether the appeal was filed within the prescribed time limit under Section 107.The petitioner argued that Ext.P1 order was served on 06-07-2023, and the appeal was filed on 06-11-2023, within the three-month period allowed for filing an appeal, with an additional one-month period for condonation of delay. The First Appellate Authority rejected the appeal, interpreting the term 'month' in Section 107 to mean 30 days, which would render the appeal untimely. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court judgment in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Himachal Techno Engineers, asserting that 'month' should be counted as per the British calendar months.The Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents did not contest the legal proposition presented by the petitioner. The Court referred to the Himachal Techno Engineers case, where the Supreme Court clarified that a 'month' should be reckoned as a calendar month, not necessarily 30 days. The Court highlighted that the legislature did not intend for 'three months' to be equated to 90 days, emphasizing that a month's duration varies based on the specific month. The Court also cited the General Clauses Act, which defines a 'month' as per the British calendar.Based on the legal principles established in the Himachal Techno Engineers case and the General Clauses Act, the Court concluded that the appeal filed on 06-11-2023 fell within the condonable period specified in Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Acts. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashed Ext.P3 order, and directed the First Appellate Authority to reconsider the appeal along with the application for condonation of delay in accordance with the Court's observations.In summary, the Court's decision hinged on the interpretation of the term 'month' in Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Acts, aligning with the Supreme Court's guidance on calculating time periods based on the British calendar months. The judgment clarified the calculation of time periods in legal contexts and emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory interpretations in determining the timeliness of appeals.
|
