Appeals under Section 107(4) CGST Act must be filed within 30 days; no extension allowed beyond this period

The HC held that appeals under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 must be filed within the prescribed 30-day period, with no power to condone delay beyond this timeframe. Relying on the SC's interpretation of a similar provision under the Central Excise Act, the court found that the Limitation Act does not apply to extend the appeal period under the CGST Act, which is a self-contained code. The rejection of the appeal as time-barred by the respondent was upheld, and the petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues:
- Can an appeal be filed beyond the time period prescribed under Section 107 (4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2007Rs.

Judgment:

Issue 1: Appeal filed beyond prescribed time period
The petitioner, a firm engaged in direct marketing, had its GST registration cancelled due to delayed filing of returns caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. The appeal against the cancellation was rejected by the 1st respondent citing delay. The petitioner argued that the rejection was erroneous, citing a similar case from the High Court of Uttarakhand. The Government Pleader contended that the appeal was time-barred as per Section 107(4) of the Act, which allows a limited time frame for filing appeals. The appeal in this case was filed after 209 days, clearly exceeding the statutory period.

Issue 2: Interpretation of statutory provisions
Section 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provides a provision for condonation of delay if the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the prescribed period, allowing a further period of one month. The Supreme Court's interpretation of similar provisions under the Central Excise Act, 1944, emphasizes the strict adherence to the prescribed time limits for filing appeals, excluding the application of the Limitation Act. The Central Goods and Services Tax Act is considered a special statute with its own self-contained code, requiring a strict interpretation of its provisions.

Conclusion:
Considering the specific language of Section 107(4) and the legal background, the Court found no illegality in the 1st respondent's decision to reject the appeal as time-barred. The writ petition was deemed meritless and subsequently dismissed.

---