Appeal filed after prescribed time limit cannot be entertained

[CA Bimal Jain]

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in M/s Penuel Nexus Pvt Ltd. v. The Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Cochin [2023 (6) TMI 941 - KERALA HIGH COURT] held that the Additional Commissioner (“the Respondent”) is right in rejecting the time-barred appeal as section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”) has an inbuilt mechanism and has impliedly excluded the application of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Facts

M/s Penuel Nexus Pvt Ltd. (“the Petitioner”) is engaged in the business of direct marketing. The business of the Petitioner was heavily affected due to Covid-19 pandemic resulting in non-filing of GST return on time.

Petitioner’s registration was cancelled by the Proper Officer vide an order dated August 10, 2022 (“the Order in Original”).

Aggrieved by the Order in Original, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Respondent who rejected the Appeal on the ground that the appeal is time-barred as it was filed on March 7, 2023 i.e. after 209 days of the Order in Original.

Issue

Whether an appeal can be filed beyond the time period prescribed under section 107 (4) of the CGST Act?

Held

The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in 2023 (6) TMI 941 - KERALA HIGH COURT held as under:

• Relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and others [2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] wherein the court held that since there is complete exclusion of section 5 of the Limitation Act, therefore the Commissioner and the High Court were justified in holding that there was no power to condone the delay after the expiry of 30 days period.
•  Held that, the CGST Act is a special statute and a self-contained code and impliedly excluded the application of the Limitation Act, 1963 and further construed that it is rudimentary that the provisions of a fiscal statute have to be strictly construed and interpreted. Thus, the Respondent is right in rejecting the time-barred appeal.
• Dismissed the writ petition

Relevant Provisions:

Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act:

“Cancellation of registration

(1) …..

(2) The proper officer may cancel the registration of a person from such date, including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit, where,––

(a) …..

(b) …..

(c) any registered person, other than a person specified in clause (b), has not furnished returns for such continuous tax period as may be prescribed; or”

section 107 of the CGST Act:

“(1) …..

(2) …..

(3) …..

(4) 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.”

(Author can be reached at [email protected])