9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 1303 - HC - GSTCondonation of delay in filing appeal - Lock-down due to COVID - sufficient cause for delay or not - appeal filed within three months from the date of communication of impugned decision or not - HELD THAT - In the instant case admittedly having received the Order passed under Section 74 on 06.03.2020, the petitioner was required to file the appeal on or before 05.06.2020, i.e., three months from the date of communication, but the appeal was presented on 13.11.2020, i.e., beyond the condonable period - it is apparent that the period of three months from the date of communication of order sought to be appealed against got lapsed during period when the effect of COVID-19 virus was at its peak. Noteworthy here to refresh that the lock-down was imposed on 24.03.2020 and there was impediment for the petitioner to file the appeal on or before 05.06.2020. Keeping in view the concern and context reflected in the Judgments, amendments to the statute and executive instruction/clarification, it is apt to say that the petitioner having filed appeal on 13.11.2020 before the Appellate Authority upon receipt of the Order in Form GST DRC-07 in terms of Rule 142(5) of the OGST Rules in connection with Section 74 of the OGST Act on 06.03.2020, the delay caused should have been condoned by the Appellate Authority. Petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of appeal by the Appellate Authority due to delay in filing. 2. Application of COVID-19 pandemic-related extensions to the limitation period for filing appeals. 3. Interpretation of judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings in the context of extensions granted by the Supreme Court. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Rejection of Appeal by the Appellate Authority Due to Delay in Filing: The petitioner challenged the rejection of their appeal by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Balasore. The appeal was filed against an order dated 06.03.2020 issued under Section 74(9) of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (OGST Act). The appeal was filed on 13.11.2020, beyond the prescribed period under Section 107(1) and (4) of the OGST Act. The Appellate Authority noted that the appeal should have been filed by 05.06.2020 and rejected it due to the petitioner’s lack of diligence and inactivity. 2. Application of COVID-19 Pandemic-Related Extensions to the Limitation Period for Filing Appeals: The petitioner argued that the Appellate Authority failed to consider the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to the Supreme Court’s order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3/2020 extending the limitation period from 15th March 2020 until further orders. The Supreme Court’s order aimed to address the difficulties faced by litigants due to the pandemic. The High Court acknowledged that the pandemic and lockdown measures imposed significant impediments for the petitioner to file the appeal within the original timeframe. 3. Interpretation of Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Proceedings in the Context of Extensions Granted by the Supreme Court: The High Court examined the Supreme Court’s orders and various government notifications extending deadlines for judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. The Court noted that the term “proceedings” includes legal processes to enforce rights and is applicable to appeals, reviews, and revisions under GST law. The Court referred to the clarification issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) and the State Government, which confirmed that the extensions granted by the Supreme Court apply to appeals and other quasi-judicial proceedings. Conclusion: The High Court concluded that the petitioner’s delay in filing the appeal should have been condoned due to the unprecedented circumstances caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court set aside the order dated 31.12.2020 passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Balasore, and directed the Appellate Authority to restore the appeal and adjudicate it on merits, adhering to the principles of natural justice. The Court clarified that its decision was limited to the issue of limitation and did not address the merits of the original order dated 06.03.2020 under Section 74 of the OGST Act. Disposition: The writ petition was allowed, and the Appellate Authority was directed to restore and hear the appeal on its merits, excluding the limitation issue.
|
