9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 773 - HC - GSTDismissal of appeal as time barred in respect of Assessment Year from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022 - power of Appellate Authority to condone a delay of more than one month in filing an appeal - HELD THAT - As per sub-section (1) of Section 107 any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under the Act or the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act by an adjudicating authority may prefer to Appellate Authority within three months from the date on which the decision or order is communicated to such person . As per sub-section (4) of Section 107 The Appellate Authority may if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of three months or six months as the case may be allow it to be presented within a further period of one month. Therefore the Appellate Authority has power to condone the delay for the period of one month only but the provisions of the Limitation Act has not been made applicable . The Apex Court has taken a similar view in the matter of Chintels India Limited Vs. Bhayana Builders Private Limited reported in 2021 (2) TMI 510 - SUPREME COURT has held that What follows from this is that the application itself must be within time and if not within a period of three months must be accompanied with an application for condonation of delay provided it is within a further period of 30 days this Court having made it clear that section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 does not apply and that any delay beyond 120 days cannot be condoned. In application for condonation of delay the petitioner has pleaded that he downloaded the order for further proceedings i.e. for filing of an appeal and in this process there has been a delay of 95 days in filing the appeal. The petitioner has calculated the limitation from the date of order i.e. 21.07.2023. The petitioner has not disclosed the date on which the order was communicated to him therefore the limitation is liable to be counted from the date of order. Therefore the Appellate Authority has no power to condone the delay. In absence of any statutory provisions even the High Court cannot condone the delay beyond the period of one month. Conclusion - The Appellate Authority correctly dismissed the appeal as time-barred given the statutory constraints. Petition dismissed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant legal framework and precedents The relevant legal framework is derived from Section 107 of the Central GST Act, 2017 and the M.P. GST Act, 2017. Sub-section (1) of Section 107 allows an aggrieved person to appeal to the Appellate Authority within three months from the communication of the decision or order. Sub-section (4) permits the Appellate Authority to condone a delay of up to one month if sufficient cause is shown, but explicitly excludes the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Chintels India Limited Vs. Bhayana Builders Private Limited, which clarified that the Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings under certain statutes, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory timelines. Court's interpretation and reasoning The Court interpreted Section 107 to mean that the Appellate Authority is bound by the statutory time limits set forth, which include a maximum condonable delay of one month beyond the initial three-month period. The Court emphasized that the language of the statute is clear and does not permit condonation beyond this period. Key evidence and findings The petitioner failed to disclose the date on which the order was communicated, leading the Court to calculate the limitation period from the date of the order itself. The appeal was filed 95 days after the order date, exceeding the permissible delay period. Application of law to facts The Court applied the statutory provisions strictly, concluding that neither the Appellate Authority nor the High Court has the jurisdiction to condone a delay beyond the prescribed one month. The absence of any statutory provision allowing for further condonation was pivotal in the Court's decision. Treatment of competing arguments The petitioner argued for the remand of the case based on a precedent set in Praveen Murarka Prop. M/s Modware India vs. CGST And Central Excise And Others, suggesting that the appeal should be considered on its merits. However, the Court found the statutory limits and the precedent set by M/s Sai Rubber works vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others more compelling, which emphasized strict compliance with fiscal statutes. Conclusions The Court concluded that the appeal was rightly dismissed as time-barred, given the statutory constraints on condoning delays beyond one month. The petition was dismissed, with no costs ordered. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning The Court reiterated the Supreme Court's stance: "Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply and that any delay beyond 120 days cannot be condoned." Core principles established
Final determinations on each issue
|
