2019 (1) TMI 1347 - HC - GST

Timely Appeals Matter: Court Dismisses Late Appeal, Retains Jurisdiction

The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory timelines regarding the condonation of delay in filing the first appeal under Section 107 ... Maintainability of condonation of delay application - period of limitation in filing first appeal - Section 107 of the UPGST Rules, 2017 - Held that:- In the instant case, there is no dispute as to the date of the communication order passed by the Assessing Authority which may be relevant for the purpose of start point of period of limitation to file an appeal - Consequently and clearly the first appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 03.12.2018 was beyond the period for which delay may have been condoned, by about nine days - there is no error in the order of the appellate authority dismissing the appeal as time barred. Process amounting to manufacture or not - activity of running a brick klin and that the entire production of bricks - Held that:- In the very nature of the activity of running that business, various qualities of bricks emerge in the manufacturing process, for various reasons - matter requires consideration - Notices issued. Issues:1. Condonation of delay in filing the first appeal under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.2. Applicability of the period for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.3. Jurisdiction of the writ Court against the original order dated 03.12.2018.Analysis:Issue 1: Condonation of DelayThe judgment addresses the issue of condonation of delay in filing the first appeal under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. It is noted that the period of limitation to file such an appeal is three months, with an additional thirty days for condonation of delay. The judgment emphasizes that no application for condonation of delay can be entertained beyond thirty days from the expiry of the normal period of limitation. In this case, the first appeal filed by the petitioner was beyond the condonable period by approximately nine days, leading to its dismissal as time-barred.Issue 2: Applicability of Condonation PeriodThe judgment cites legal precedents, including a decision of the Supreme Court and a Full Bench decision of the Court, to support the conclusion that delay condonation applications filed beyond the thirty-day limit are not maintainable. The appellate authority was deemed correct in dismissing the appeal as time-barred based on these legal principles and precedents. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and the consequences of failing to do so in the context of appeal filings.Issue 3: Jurisdiction of the Writ CourtThe petitioner argued that even if the appeal remedy is deemed non-existent due to the delay, the jurisdiction of the writ Court against the original order dated 03.12.2018 should not be ousted. The petitioner contended that discrepancies in the treatment of the quality of bricks produced in their brick kiln warranted further consideration. The Court acknowledged the submission and allowed for the matter to be considered further, granting time for the respondents to file a counter affidavit and the petitioner to file a rejoinder affidavit. The Court also issued directions for the stay of recovery proceedings subject to the petitioner meeting certain conditions related to the disputed tax amount.In conclusion, the judgment primarily focuses on the issue of condonation of delay in filing the first appeal, highlighting the strict adherence to statutory timelines and legal precedents governing such matters. Additionally, the jurisdiction of the writ Court against the original order is recognized, allowing for further consideration of the petitioner's contentions regarding the quality of bricks produced in their business.