9911796707
TMI BlogJudicial Perspectives on Condonation of Delay: Analysing Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Section 107 of the CGST Act.X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Judicial Perspectives on Condonation of Delay: Analysing Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Section 107 of the CGST Act. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the law assists those who are vigilant about their rights as encapsulated in the maxim "Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subventions,"[2] .Furthermore, the limitation period ensures certainty and finality in litigation, assuring the opposite party against indefinite liability. By enforcing these time constraints, the law aims to prevent the misuse and abuse of judicial power, thereby effectuating the purpose behind various enactments.[3]Thus, the statutes of limitation are not merely procedural technicalities but fundamental to the fair administration of justice. The Laws of Limitation are essential not just as procedural rules but as a key component of a just legal system. The Law of Limitation establishes a general timeframe for resol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ving disputes, making sure that legal actions are taken within a sensible period. In India, this has been formalised through the Limitation Act, 1963,. Additionally, relevant provisions can be found in every statute to promote prompt resolution and to avoid unnecessary delays in litigation. * The Concept of Condonation of Delay The Black's Law Dictionary[4] defines Condonation as "Conditional remission or forgiveness." Therefore, a judicial body allowing for the delayed filing or admissibility of a claim can be understood as condoning the delay. * Condonation of Delay and the Principle of Sufficient Cause Section 5 of the Limitation Act[5], allows for the extension of the prescribed period for filing an appeal, revision, review, or ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plication if the applicant can demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay. The scope and interpretation of Section 5 of the Limitation Act have been extensively analysed in various judgments, emphasising a liberal approach to the phrase "sufficient cause" to ensure substantial justice. In a recent case, it was noted that courts generally adopt a liberal stance to condone delays, provided the cause is genuine[6]. This principle was echoed in an earlier case[7], where it was established that even with sufficient cause, condonation of delay remains at the court's discretion. A justice-oriented approach, stressing that delays should be condoned if not deliberate, has been further advocated[8]. However, as seen in subsequent cases[9], the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erits of the case cannot influence the decision to condone delay, and negligence or lack of bona fide cannot be excused. The court has reiterated that equitable considerations or hardships do not justify exemption from limitation, and delays must be convincingly explained to be condoned[10]. Section 107 of CGST[11] Act lays that Appeals to the Appellate Authority must be filed within three months from the date of communication of the decision or order. The Appellate Authority may allow an appeal to be presented within a further period of one month if sufficient cause is shown for the delay. * Interplay Between Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Section 107 of the CGST Act The application of Section 5 of the Limitati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Act, 1963, alongside Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, has undergone significant judicial examination in various High Courts throughout India. The rulings demonstrate a detailed comprehension of how these provisions interact, especially regarding the power of appellate bodies to excuse delays in submitting appeals. In 2008, the Supreme Court[12] established that the appellate authorities under the Central Excise Act, similar to those under the CGST Act, lack the authority to excuse delays that exceed the statutory limits set by the respective laws. This principle has been consistently referenced in subsequent judgments. In 2009, the Supreme Court reaffirmed this position[13], highlighting tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the Limitation Act's provisions do not apply when a special statute outlines specific timelines for appeals. This ruling has played a significant role in shaping the understanding of Section 107 of the CGST Act. Moving to 2023, the Allahabad High Court[14] reiterated that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to Section 107 of the CGST Act since the latter has its own built-in limitation mechanism. The court observed that the lack of a provision for condoning delays beyond the designated timeframe means that Section 5 does not apply here. In the same year, the Calcutta High Court[15] took a contrary view, suggesting that Section 5 of the Limitation Act could be invoked since Section 107 does not explicitly exclude i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts application. However, this judgment has been criticised and not followed by other courts, as seen in subsequent rulings. The Rajasthan High Court[16] also aligned with the view that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to Section 107 of the CGST Act reiterating the established principle that the limitation provisions in tax statutes are to be strictly construed. In 2024, the Andhra Pradesh High Court[17] upheld the position that the appellate authority under Section 107 has no power to condone delays beyond the one-month extension provided, thereby reinforcing the exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The analysis of whether Section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963 affects the application of Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 of the Limitation Act in the context of Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 reveals a nuanced interplay between these legal provisions as interpreted by various High Courts. Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act states that where any special or local law prescribes a period of limitation different from that prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act shall apply only insofar as they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law. This implies that if a special law, such as the CGST Act, does not explicitly exclude the application of Section 5, then it may still be applicable. However, the prevailing judicial interpretation, as in the case of Abhishek Tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding Corporation[18]; Allahabad High Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to Section 107 of the CGST Act, as the latter contains its limitation provisions and does not provide for the condonation of delays beyond the specified periods. Similarly, the Supreme Court establishing[19] that the appellate authorities under the Central Excise Act, which has a similar structure to the CGST Act, do not have the jurisdiction to condone delays beyond the statutory limits. This principle has been consistently upheld in subsequent cases, reinforcing the notion that the CGST Act is a self-contained code with specific provisions regarding limitation. In contrast, only the Calcutta High Court has suggested that Section 5 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Limitation Act could be invoked since Section 107 does not explicitly exclude its application. However, this view has not gained widespread acceptance[20]. The interplay between Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 reveals a complex legal landscape shaped by judicial interpretation. While Section 5 provides a framework for the condonation of delays in general legal proceedings, the specific provisions of Section 107 impose strict timelines for filing appeals, thereby limiting the applicability of Section 5. The prevailing judicial consensus, as established by various High Court rulings, indicates that Section 5 is effectively excluded in the context of Section 107, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the latter contains its own limitation provisions that do not allow for extensions beyond the specified periods. * Judicial Scrutiny of Delay Condonation The importance of writs in the context of delay condonation under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act is significant, as they provide a mechanism for aggrieved parties to seek judicial relief when they face procedural hurdles. Writ petitions allow individuals to challenge decisions made by tax authorities, particularly when those decisions involve the rejection of appeals based on delays. In various cases, High Courts have demonstrated a willingness to condone delays when sufficient cause is shown. For instance, in Shaik Abdul Azeez Vs. The State of AP an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Ors.[21], the Andhra Pradesh High Court acknowledged the petitioner's health issues as a valid reason for the delay in filing an appeal, allowing the appeal to be considered on its merits. This reflects the court's understanding that genuine health concerns can impede timely legal action. Similarly, the Calcutta High Court[22] highlighted that the appellate authority needs to evaluate the merits of the case and the reasons behind any delays rather than simply rejecting the appeal based on timing alone. This ruling reinforced the idea that the law should serve justice and that procedural issues should not take precedence over fundamental rights. Additionally, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court[23] quashed a contested orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r because the petitioner was unaware of the notices that had been issued, a situation caused by the petitioner's accountant not informing him. The court permitted the petitioner to argue his case based on its merits on the condition that he deposits a portion of the disputed tax. However, there have also been instances where the judiciary has shown less flexibility. For instance, the Allahabad High Court[24] dismissed a petition because it was filed after the maximum period allowed by law. The court stressed that the appellate authority could not overlook the delay beyond the set limits. It reaffirmed the importance of adhering to statutory timelines, highlighting its dedication to maintaining the integrity of the legal process. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Madras High Court[25] observed that the appeals were submitted 10 days past the legally allowed condonable period. While the court did grant the request for condonation, it emphasised that the delay was not warranted and that the statutory provisions regarding timelines were explicit. * Conclusion The legal framework regarding the condonation of delays in appeals under the CGST Act emphasizes strict adherence to established timelines, as specified in Section 107. Courts have repeatedly highlighted the necessity of demonstrating sufficient cause for any delays, while also maintaining that the merits of the case should not influence the decision to condone such delays. This dual approach seeks to balance the need for procedural ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discipline with the principles of substantive justice. As the judiciary navigates these complexities, it is essential for litigants to stay alert in meeting statutory deadlines, ensuring their rights are protected within the legal framework. The ongoing evolution of jurisprudence in this area will continue to shape the landscape of tax litigation in India, underscoring the critical importance of timely legal action. [1] SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA VERSUS SUNIL KRISHNA KHAITAN AND OTHERS - 2022 (7) TMI 582 - SUPREME COURT. [2] STATE OF KERALA & ORS. VERSUS V.R. KALLIYANIKUTTY & ANR. - 1999 (4) TMI 609 - SUPREME COURT [3] M/S ARIF AZIM CO. LTD. VERSUS M/S APTECH LTD. - 2024 (3) TMI 121 - SUPREME COURT (LB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) [4] Black's Law Dictionary. 10th ed., Thomson Reuters, 2014. [5] Limitation Act, 1963, Sec. 5. [6] PATHAPATI SUBBA REDDY (DIED) BY L. RS. & ORS. VERSUS THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA) - 2024 (5) TMI 1319 - SUPREME COURT. [7] RAMLAL, MOTILAL AND CHHOTELAL VERSUS REWA COALFIELDS LTD - 1961 (5) TMI 54 - SUPREME COURT [8] COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VERSUS MST. KATIJI AND OTHERS - 1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT [9] COMMISSIONER NAGAR PARISHAD, BHILWARA VERSUS LABOUR COURT, BHILWARA AND ORS. - 2009 (1) TMI 933 - SUPREME COURT; BASAWARAJ & ANOTHER VERSUS THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER - 2013 (12) TMI 274 - SUPREME COURT ; STATE OF JHARKHAND VERSUS ASHOK KUMAR CHOKHANI - 2009 (1) TMI 459 - SC ORDER. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [10] BRIJESH KUMAR & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS - 2015 (7) TMI 21 - SUPREME COURT; MAQBUL AHMAD VERSUS ONKAR PRATAP NARAIN SINGH - 1935 (2) TMI 1 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT. [11] Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Sec 107. [12] SINGH ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAMSHEDPUR - 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT. [13] COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS M/S HONGO INDIA (P) LTD. & ANR. - 2009 (3) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT. [14] M/S ABHISHEK TRADING CORPORATION VERSUS COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND ANOTHER - 2024 (2) TMI 1214 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT. [15] S.K. CHAKRABORTY & SONS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - 2023 (12) TMI 290 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT. [16] M/S YADAV STEELS HAVING OFF ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ICE VERSUS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER - 2024 (2) TMI 1069 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT [17] M/S. VENKATESWARA RAO KESANAKURTI, M/S. SAI BALAJI INFRASTRUCTURES. VERSUS THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (ST) , APPELLATE AUTHORITY, VIJAYAWADA, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) , JAGANNAICKPUR CIRCLE - 2024 (8) TMI 1387 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT [18] supra 14. [19] supra 12. [20] supra 15. [21] SHAIK ABDUL AZEEZ VERSUS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH - 2024 (5) TMI 171 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT [22] KAJAL DUTTA. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, SURI CHARGE & ORS. - 2023 (1) TMI 1097 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT. [23] DIAMONG CARGO MOVERS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROP. RAMESH NARAYANAN. VERSUS STATE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TAX OFFICER II, TUTICORIN. - 2024 (10) TMI 436 - MADRAS HIGH COURT,
[24] SHRI RAM PLY PRODUCT THRU. ITS PARTNER SHRI ARUN KUMAR JINDAL VERSUS ADDL. COMMISSIONER GRADE 2 APPEAL STATE TAX SITAPUR AND 2 OTHERS - 2023 (5) TMI 559 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
[25] M/S. SRI MUTHARAMMAN TRADERS., REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. G. THANGARAVI VERSUS THE STATE TAX OFFICER, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ST) GST, APPEAL CHENNAI - II, CHENNAI - 2023 (7) TMI 100 - MADRAS HIGH COURT. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
