9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 897 - HC - GSTRejection of appeal for reason of delay of five days - HELD THAT - Section 107(4) of the B.G.S.T. Act clearly stipulates a period of three months time for an appeal to be filed and a further period of one month within which a delayed appeal has to be filed. Going by the statutory provisions, there is absolutely no power vested either in the Appellate Authority or in a Constitutional Court acting under Article 226 to extend the period of limitation, especially when there is a specific stipulation and period prescribed for the purpose of filing a delayed appeal. The notification which was brought out on 02.11.2023 only permits appeals to be filed from orders passed by the proper officer on or before 31.03.2023, in cases in which it was not instituted in time or within the time permitted for a delayed appeal, and in cases where such delayed appeals beyond the stipulation in 107(4) has been rejected. The petitioner would not squarely fall under the notification - there are no rationale for the date fixed of 31.03.2023, as a cut off date. It is noticed that the notification itself was brought out on 02.11.2023 and in such circumstances any order passed in at least three months before that date; the time provided for filing an appeal, ought to have been considered for such beneficial treatment. The petitioner also can be allowed to comply with the conditions in Notification No. 53 of 2023 upon which the order passed in appeal would stand set aside and a fresh consideration will be made by the first Appellate Authority - petition allowed.
Issues:
The judgment involves a challenge to an order in appeal based on a delay of five days. The issues include the interpretation of Section 107(4) of the B.G.S.T. Act regarding the time period for filing appeals, the impact of a notification by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs dated 02.11.2023, and the application of the notification's provisions to the petitioner's case. Interpretation of Section 107(4) of the B.G.S.T. Act: The court noted that Section 107(4) of the B.G.S.T. Act specifies a three-month period for filing appeals, with an additional one-month period for delayed appeals. It was emphasized that neither the Appellate Authority nor a Constitutional Court has the power to extend the period of limitation when specific timeframes are prescribed for filing delayed appeals. Impact of the Notification by Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs: The judgment highlighted a notification dated 02.11.2023, issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, which provided a special procedure for filing appeals in cases where appeals were rejected solely due to not being filed within the specified time period. The notification outlined conditions for filing appeals, including payment requirements and restrictions on refunds. Application of the Notification to the Petitioner's Case: The court addressed the petitioner's case, noting that the notification allowed appeals to be filed for orders passed on or before 31.03.2023, which did not align with the petitioner's situation where the order was passed on 27.04.2023. However, the court found the cut-off date of 31.03.2023 arbitrary, considering the notification was issued on 02.11.2023. Consequently, the court allowed the petitioner to comply with the conditions of the notification, leading to the setting aside of the appeal order for fresh consideration by the Appellate Authority, with the condition that all criteria in the notification must be fulfilled. Conclusion: The court allowed the writ petition, providing directions for the petitioner to adhere to the conditions outlined in Notification No. 53 of 2023. This decision would result in the appeal order being set aside, and a new assessment would be conducted by the first Appellate Authority based on the compliance with the notification's criteria.
|
