Section 5 of the Limitation Act would not be applicable for appeal filed under GST

The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of M/S YADAV STEELS HAVING OFFICE VERSUS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER - 2024 (2) TMI 1069 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT dismissed the writ petition, thereby holding that, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (“the Limitation Act”) would not be applicable for appeal filed under Section 107 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017(“the UPGST Act”).

Facts:

M/s. Yadav Steels (“the Petitioner”) has filed a writ petition against the order dated January 23, 2023, (“the Impugned Order”) passed under Section 107 of the UPGST Act wherein the appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed on the ground of limitation as the said appeal was filed approximately 66 days beyond the date of limitation.

Issue:

Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act would be applicable for appeal filed under Section 107 of the UPGST Act?

Held:

The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of M/S YADAV STEELS HAVING OFFICE VERSUS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER - 2024 (2) TMI 1069 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT held as under:

• Observed that, Section 107(4) of the UPGST Act, allows extension for a period of one month. Also, Section 107 aims to prevent undue delay in the adjudication process and promote effective administration of the GST regime.
• Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of M/S ABHISHEK TRADING CORPORATION VERSUS COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND ANOTHER - 2024 (2) TMI 1214 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT and noted that, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017(“the CGST Act”) is a special statute and a self-contained code in itself and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would not be applicable.
• Opined that, the judgement Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of S.K. CHAKRABORTY & SONS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - 2023 (12) TMI 290 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURTwherein it was held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, would be applicable as Section 107 of the CGST Act does not expressly or impliedly exclude the attraction of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, would not be applicable in the present case.
• Held that, the writ petition is devoid of merits. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.

Relevant Provision:

Section 5 of the Limitation Act:

“5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.—

Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.

Explanation.—The fact that the appellant or the applicant was missed by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section.”

(Author can be reached at [email protected])