9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 1501 - HC - GSTLegality validity and propriety of order - appeal dismissed on the ground of time limitation - Power of the appellate authority to condone the delay - HELD THAT - In the instant case as per the facts submitted by the petitioner in memo of writ petition the appeal against the assessment orders dated 13.06.2023 19.05.2023 was filed on 26.10.2023 which is admittedly beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Act of 2017. Nowhere it has been stated in the memo of petition by the petitioner that at any point of time request was made by the petitioner for condoning the delay. Even otherwise in view of Section 107 (4) of the Act of 2017 the Appellate Authority had no power to condone the delay after expiry of one month beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Hence the Appellate Authority has rightly rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner after expiry of the limitation period prescribed under the Act. It would also be relevant to refer the judgment delivered by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU Kakinanda Ors. Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited 2020 (5) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT where the question before the Hon ble Apex Court was as to whether the High Court could have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the statutory remedy of appeal against that order stood foreclosed by law of limitation. The Hon ble Supreme Court after examining the question with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition after expiry of statutory limitation period has given a clear verdict that under the circumstances where the assessee had failed to avail the remedy of appeal within limitation the High Court cannot entertain the writ petition and the same deserve to be rejected at the threshold. The petitioner has also not come out with a case that the order passed by the assessing authority was either without jurisdiction or was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Petition dismissed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
- Whether the appeal filed under Section 107 of the Rajasthan Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (the Act of 2017) against the assessment orders dated 13.06.2023 and 19.05.2023 was maintainable despite being filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. - Whether the Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation without considering the merits of the case. - Whether the assessing authority acted arbitrarily or on erroneous assumptions in passing the assessment orders and imposing interest and penalty. - Whether the petitioner's failure to file GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B returns on time due to medical reasons could constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. - Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable in circumstances where the statutory remedy of appeal is foreclosed by limitation. - Whether the assessment orders were passed without jurisdiction or in violation of principles of natural justice. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Limitation and Maintainability of Appeal under Section 107 of the Act of 2017 The legal framework under Section 107(1) of the Act of 2017 prescribes a limitation period of three months for filing an appeal against the assessment order, with a possible extension of one additional month by the Appellate Authority, provided sufficient cause is shown for delay. Section 107(4) explicitly restricts the Appellate Authority's power to condone delay beyond this one-month extension. The petitioner filed the appeal on 26.10.2023 against assessment orders dated 13.06.2023 and 19.05.2023, which is beyond the prescribed limitation period. The petitioner did not request condonation of delay at any stage. Consequently, the Appellate Authority rightly dismissed the appeal as time barred. The Court relied on authoritative precedent from the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case concerning the maintainability of writ petitions when statutory remedies are foreclosed by limitation. The Supreme Court held that if an assessee fails to avail the statutory remedy of appeal within the prescribed period, the High Court cannot entertain a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the order. This principle was reaffirmed by this Court in a recent decision where it was held that waiting for expiry of limitation and maximum condonation period before filing a writ petition renders it non-maintainable. The Court emphasized that the limitation prescribed under the statute is mandatory and jurisdictional, and non-compliance results in the loss of the right to appeal. The Appellate Authority's dismissal of the appeal on limitation grounds was therefore legally valid and proper. Merits of the Assessment Orders and Allegations of Arbitrary Action The petitioner contended that the assessing authority passed the assessment orders mechanically and arbitrarily, imposing interest and penalty without proper basis. However, the Court noted that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the assessment orders were passed without jurisdiction or in violation of principles of natural justice. No substantive evidence was presented to show that the orders were erroneous beyond the procedural lapse of delayed appeal. Moreover, the petitioner's explanation that medical reasons caused delay in filing GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B returns was not advanced as a ground for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The Court observed that such reasons, while relevant for return filing, do not automatically translate into sufficient cause for extending limitation for appeal under the Act. The Court held that the Appellate Authority was not obliged to consider the merits of the appeal once the limitation period had expired and no condonation was sought or granted. The statutory scheme clearly prioritizes adherence to limitation timelines over substantive adjudication in such cases. Maintainability of Writ Petition under Article 226 The petitioner sought to challenge the assessment orders and the dismissal of the appeal through a writ petition under Article 226. The Court reiterated the settled legal position that writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for statutory remedies, especially when such remedies are available and have been foreclosed due to non-compliance with limitation. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling that the High Court should not entertain writ petitions that effectively circumvent limitation periods prescribed for appeals. Since the petitioner failed to file the appeal within limitation or seek condonation, the writ petition was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed at the threshold. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS "Section 107 (1) of the Act of 2017 deals with filing of appeal against assessment order and also prescribes limitation period of three months for filing appeal, which can be extended by the Appellate Authority for a maximum period of further one month, that too after being satisfied that the Appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the Appeal within the prescribed limitation period." "Nowhere, it has been stated in the memo of petition by the petitioner that at any point of time, request was made by the petitioner for condoning the delay. Even otherwise, in view of Section 107 (4) of the Act of 2017, the Appellate Authority had no power to condone the delay, after expiry of one month beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Hence, the Appellate Authority has rightly rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner after expiry of the limitation period prescribed under the Act." "The Hon'ble Supreme Court after examining the question with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition after expiry of statutory limitation period has given a clear verdict that under the circumstances, where the assessee had failed to avail the remedy of appeal within limitation, the High Court cannot entertain the writ petition and the same deserve to be rejected at the threshold." Core principles established include:
Final determinations:
|
