9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 631X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... panies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of manufacturing iron and steel products. The appellant had filed TRAN-1 to claim CGST input credit of Rs.30,74,436/-. However, the Adjudicating Authority by an order dated 26.06.2019 had disallowed the CGST input credit of Rs.25,33,950/-. 4. Against the aforesaid order, the appellant preferred an appeal on 16.12.2019 under Section 107 (1) of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short, 'CGST Act') before respondent No.3 and had deposited 10% of the amount in dispute. 5. The appeal was rejected by an order dated 20.12.2019 passed by respondent No.3 on the ground of the same being barred by limitation. 6. Writ petition was filed assailing the said order dated 20.12.2019 passed by respondent No.3 with a further prayer to direct the respondent No.3 to hear the appeal preferred by the appellant on merits. 7. It will be appropriate to extract relevant provisions of Section 107 of the CGST Act : "107. Appeals to Appellate Authority.-(1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act or the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act by an adjudicating authority m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent No. 3 ought to have considered the application for condonation of delay. He has drawn our attention to Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, 'Limitation Act') and submits that there being no express exclusion of provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 of Limitation Act under the CGST Act, respondent No.3 had power to condone the delay on satisfaction being arrived at that there was sufficient cause for the delay. 10. Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents, submits that the CGST Act is a special law and same is a complete code by itself and the relevant provisions make it abundant clear that the provisions of Limitation Act are necessarily excluded, and therefore, the submission of Mr. Pandey that there is power to condone delay even beyond the period prescribed is entirely misplaced. He relies on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Patel Brothers v. State of Assam, reported in (2017) 2 SCC 350, P. Radha Bai and Others v. P. Ashok Kumar and Another, reported in (2019) 13 SCC 445 and Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and Others, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 70. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at even in a case where the special law does not exclude the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act by an express reference, it would nonetheless be open to the Court to examine whether and to what extent the nature of those provisions or the nature of subject matter and scheme of the special law exclude their operation. 16. The aforesaid principle was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India Private Limited & Another , reported in (2009) 5 SCC 791. At paragraph 35, it was observed as follows: "It was contended before us that the words "expressly excluded" would mean that there must be an express reference made in the special or local law to the specific provisions of the Limitation Act of which the operation is to be excluded. In this regard, we have to see the scheme of the special law which here in this case is the Central Excise Act. The nature of the remedy provided therein is such that the legislature intended it to be a complete code by itself which alone should govern the several matters provided by it. If, on an examination of the relevant provisions, it is clear that the provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the 1st day of July, 2003 (not being an order relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment), by application in the prescribed form, accompanied, where the application is made by the other party, by a fee of two hundred rupees, apply to the High Court to direct the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court any question of law arising from such order of the Tribunal." 19. Unamended Section 35-H of the C.E. Act dealt with reference application to the High Court. Under sub-section (1) thereof, such reference application could be preferred within a period of 180 days of the date upon which the aggrieved party is served with notice of an order under Section 35-C of the C.E. Act. There was no provision to extend the period of limitation for filing the application to the High Court beyond the said period and to condone the delay. Pertinently, under the scheme of the C.E. Act itself, in case of appeal to the Commissioner under Section 35 of the Act, which should be filed within 60 days, there was a specific provision for condonation of delay upto 30 days if suffici ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as to whether there was legislative intent to exclude the operation of Limitation Act. As Section 84 of the VAT Act made only Sections 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act applicable to the proceedings under the VAT Act, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the apparent legislative intent, which can be clearly evinced, is to exclude other provisions, including Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It was observed that if the intention of the legislature was to make Section 5, or for that matter, other provisions of the Limitation Act applicable to the proceedings under the VAT Act, there was no necessity to make specific provision like Section 84 thereby making only Sections 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act applicable to such proceedings, inasmuch as these two Sections would also have become applicable by virtue of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. 23. In P. Radha Bai (Supra), the inquiry conducted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether the text or the scheme and object of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act of 1996) excludes the application of Section 17 of the Limitation Act while determining the limitation period as prescribed under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... form and shall be verified in the prescribed manner. 7. It is to be noted that the periods sixty days and thirty days have been substituted for within three months and three months by Act 14 of 2001, with effect from 11.5.2001. 27. It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) as also the Tribunal being creatures of Statute are vested with jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the permissible period provided under the Statute. The period upto which the prayer for condonation can be accepted is statutorily provided. The first proviso to Section 35 makes the position clear that the appeal has to be preferred within three months from the date of communication to him of the decision or order. However, if the Commissioner is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of 60 days, he can allow it to be presented within a further period of 30 days. In other words, this clearly shows that the appeal has to be filed within 60 days but in terms of the proviso further 30 days time can be granted by the appellate authority to entertain the appeal. The proviso to subs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... powered to condone the delay in filing the appeal, only if it is filed within a further period of not exceeding 30 days and sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within prescribed time is made out. The appellate authority is not empowered to condone delay beyond the aggregate period of 60 days from the date of order or service of proceeding on the assessee, as the case may be. It is to be noted, at this juncture, that in the aforesaid case, admittedly, the appeal was filed beyond the total 60 days' period specified in terms of Section 31 of the AP VAT Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the AP VAT Act is a special legislation within the meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act and, therefore, the prescription with regard to the limitation has binding effect and the same has to be followed regard being had to its mandatory nature. It was also explained that the prescription of limitation in the case at hand, when the statute commands that the Court may condone the further delay not beyond 60 days, it would come within the ambit and sweep of the provisions and policy of legislation. It was also observed that there is a statutory command by the legislation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
