9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 736 - HC - GSTTime limitation for filing appeal - appeals preferred by the petitioner under the provisions of the GST Act dismissed as being beyond limitation as prescribed under Section 107 of GST Act - HELD THAT - Prima-facie the petitioner was bonafidely pursuing his remedy before this Court as well as before the Supreme Court as is evident from the two orders passed and immediately after passing of the order by the Supreme Court on 04.11.2024 the petitioner preferred the appeals on 06.11.2024. The period of the petitioner having spent before the High Court and the Supreme Court could be pleaded by him to be excused in view of the mandate of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. This aspect has not been considered in the impugned orders. Thus finding the impugned orders dated 11.11.2024 23.11.2024 to be improper insofar as it fails to consider the mandatory prescriptions contained in Section 14 of the Limitation Act the orders impugned cannot be sustained and are quashed. Matter is remanded to the appellate authority to pass orders afresh - Petition allowed by way of remand.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issues considered in this judgment are:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Dismissal of Appeals as Beyond Limitation The relevant legal framework is Section 107 of the GST Act, which prescribes the limitation period for filing appeals. The Tribunal observed that the appeals were filed beyond this period and noted that the principles of Section 5 of the Limitation Act do not apply, as established in the precedent of M/s A V Construction vs. Commissioner and Ors. The petitioner argued that the delay should be excused under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, as they were pursuing remedies in higher courts. The Court found that the appellate authority failed to consider this aspect, which was a significant oversight. 2. Application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act The petitioner contended that the time spent in litigation before the High Court and Supreme Court should be excluded from the limitation period under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The Court agreed that this argument was not addressed in the impugned orders, and thus, the orders were improper. The Court referenced the case of M.P. Steel Corporation vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, which supports the application of Section 14 to exclude time spent in bona fide litigation in another forum. 3. Invocation of Section 74 of the GST Act The petitioner challenged the invocation of Section 74, arguing that there were no allegations of fraud or wilful misstatement, which are prerequisites for invoking this section. Additionally, the SIB report, which was a basis for the order, was not provided to the petitioner. The Court noted that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to respond to the SIB report, and the invocation of Section 74 without proper allegations was questionable. 4. Requirement of 10% Pre-deposit The Tribunal noted that the petitioner did not fulfill the mandatory requirement of a 10% pre-deposit for the appeal. This was a procedural requirement under the GST Act, and the failure to meet it was noted as a reason for dismissing the appeal. The petitioner did not specifically address this issue in the arguments presented, focusing instead on the limitation and procedural fairness aspects. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held that the dismissal of the appeals on the grounds of limitation without considering Section 14 of the Limitation Act was improper. The orders dated 11.11.2024 and 23.11.2024 were quashed, and the matter was remanded to the appellate authority for fresh consideration, taking into account the mandate of Section 14 and relevant case law. The Court emphasized the need for procedural fairness, particularly in providing the SIB report to the petitioner and ensuring that all legal prerequisites for invoking Section 74 were met. The appellate authority was directed to pass a new order within three weeks, allowing the petitioner to present additional documents or case law. The petition was allowed, providing the petitioner an opportunity to have their appeal reconsidered with due regard to procedural and substantive legal principles.
|
