TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
19 Sep 2024
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CHANDRASEKARAN ANAND VERSUS THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ST) , GST – APPEALS, CHENNAI – I - 2024 (9) TMI 1000 - MADRAS HIGH COURT, has allowed the writ petition filed against the order dismissing the appeal filed beyond the condonable period due to Accountant illness and thereby, directed the Appellant to consider the appeal filed on merits without going into the question of limitation.
Facts:
Mr. Chandrasekaran Anand (“the Petitioner”), Proprietor, filed a writ petition against appellate order dated March 21, 2024 (“the Impugned Order”), wherein the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was rejected by the Revenue Department (“the Respondent”) on the grounds of limitation.. as the same was filed beyond the condonable period as it had ended on February 16, 2024. The Petitioner contended that delay was due to Petitioner’s accountant, being hospitalized during the said time period. However, the Respondent did not take into consideration the aforesaid fact and dismissed the appeal filed on the ground of limitation.
Held:
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in CHANDRASEKARAN ANAND VERSUS THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ST) , GST – APPEALS, CHENNAI – I - 2024 (9) TMI 1000 - MADRAS HIGH COURT considering the merits of the case allowed the appeal filed and directed the Respondent to consider the appeal filed on merits without going into the question of limitation.
Our Comments:
The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of JAYANTA GHOSH AND ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. - 2024 (3) TMI 779 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT and MURTAZA B KAUKAWALA VERSUS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. - 2024 (4) TMI 508 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, allowed the appeal filed beyond the limitation period interlalia holding that an Appellate Authority cannot dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation without granting any opportunity of hearing. The delay can be condoned if the principles of natural justice has been violated by not providing the opportunity of hearing to the Appellant and the period prescribed for filing of appeal is not final.
However, The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in PENUEL NEXUS PVT. LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. M.O. JOSEPH VERSUS THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER HEADQUARTERS (APPEALS) , STATE TAX OFFICER, TAXPAYER SERVICES CIRCLE, COCHIN - 2023 (6) TMI 941 - KERALA HIGH COURT held that the Additional Commissioner (“the Respondent”) is right in rejecting the time-barred appeal as section 107 of the CGST Act has an inbuilt mechanism and has impliedly excluded the application of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Further, 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 would not be applicable for appeal filed under Section 107 of the UPGST Act.
(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)