9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 1234 - HC - GSTAppeal dismissed on the ground of limitation - original order confirming the demand u/s 74 of the GST Act was passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - HELD THAT - It is admitted fact that the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the notification dated 02.11.2023 (Annexure No. 1 to the supplementary affidavit. On close scrutiny of the said notification, it is clear that if taxable person could not file appeal against the order passed by the Proper Officer on or before 31.03.2023 under sections 73 or 74 of the GST Act and if the appeal is preferred on or before 31.01.2024, the same will be considered on merit without taking recourse to the limitation. In the case in hand, the impugned order has been passed on 20.07.2023, much after the date mentioned in the aforesaid notification, i.e., 31.03.2023. Therefore, the said notification is of no aid to the petitioner. Further, the judgement cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of M/S SUMIT ENTERPRISES OFFICE AT BADEL NAWABGANJ BARABANKI THRU. PROPRIETOR ATUL KUMAR VERSUS STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. MINISTRY OF FINANCE LKO. AND 2 OTHERS 2023 (10) TMI 342 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT nowhere deals with condoning the delay; whereby the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of limitation and therefore, the same is also of no aid to the petitioner. In the above judgement, it has been specifically held that delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned beyond the prescribed period of limitation in the Act. This Court does not find any merit in these writ petitions - Petition dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to impugned orders on grounds of limitation under the GST Act. Analysis: The judgment by the High Court dealt with writ petitions challenging orders passed under the GST Act on the basis of limitation. The petitioner, a registered dealer, contested the dismissal of their appeal on grounds of limitation. The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without observing the mandatory requirement of proving willful tax evasion as per section 74 of the GST Act. Additionally, the petitioner relied on a notification providing relaxation for filing appeals beyond the prescribed time limit. The respondent, on the other hand, supported the dismissal of the appeal, citing that it was filed beyond the limitation period under section 107 of the GST Act. The Court examined the records and noted that the appeal was indeed dismissed due to limitation. It clarified that the notification cited by the petitioner did not apply to their case as it was issued after the impugned order. The Court also found that the judgments cited by the petitioner did not address the issue of condoning delay due to limitation. The Court referred to various judgments, including M/s Abhishek Trading Corporation and Penuel Nexus Pvt. Ltd., emphasizing that the GST Act is a special statute with its own limitation provisions, excluding the application of the general Limitation Act. It highlighted that Section 107 of the GST Act sets a specific limitation period for filing appeals, which cannot be extended beyond the prescribed time frame even with sufficient cause. The Court underscored the importance of limitations in tax statutes, emphasizing the need for timely resolution of tax disputes to ensure efficiency and fairness in tax administration. It rejected the petitioner's argument that delay could be condoned beyond the statutory limitation period, as per the provisions of the GST Act. Furthermore, the Court dismissed the writ petitions, relying on the legal principles established in previous judgments and the specific provisions of the GST Act regarding limitation periods for filing appeals. It reiterated that the GST Act operates as a self-contained code with its own limitation provisions, distinct from the general provisions of the Limitation Act. The Court emphasized the significance of adherence to statutory limitation periods in tax laws to maintain legal certainty and facilitate effective tax compliance. Ultimately, the Court held that the delay in filing the appeal could not be condoned beyond the prescribed period of limitation as mandated by the GST Act.
|
