2023 (7) TMI 1225 - HC - GST

Petitioner Directed to Pursue Statutory Remedy under Section 107 of C.G.S.T. Act Before Further Legal Action

M/s Gyan Cement House Through Proprietor Seema Singh Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal Secretary, Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax Office Of Joint Commissioner Of State Tax, Commissioner Of State Tax Madhya Pradesh, Office Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

HC determined that the petitioner must first exhaust the statutory remedy under Section 107 of C.G.S.T. Act, 2017. The court set aside the impugned order ... Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - time period prescribed for filing of appeal expired - HELD THAT:- A bare perusal of statutory provision u/s 107 of Act, 2017 reveals that the Appellate Authority cannot entertain an appeal filed beyond the original period of three months + one month of extended period since there is no power given under the statute for condonation of delay. However, period of three months + one month, as the case may be, is required to be calculated from the day that decision or order appealed against is communicated to aggrieved person. Instant case pertains to year 2023 and since nearly six years have expired since coming into effect of new regime on 01.07.2017 the teething issues are over and; therefore, provisions of Section 169(1) of Act of 2017 deserve to be implemented in letter and spirit without implying or reading into it anything which is not expressly provided. In this view of the matter, the decision rendered by Madras High Court is of no avail to the petitioner - It is a disputed question of fact whether impugned order was communicated to petitioner on 27.06.2023, which has to be looked into by the Appellate Authority. Impugned order set aside - petition disposed off. Issues involved: Quashment of impugned order, Alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of C.G.S.T. Act, 2017, Calculation of appeal filing period, Communication of impugned order, Applicability of Madras High Court decision, Disputed question of fact regarding communication of order.Quashment of impugned order: The petitioner sought quashment of the impugned order dated 09.01.2023 on various grounds, including merits. The petitioner argued that due to the expiry of the time period prescribed for filing an appeal, they had no option but to approach the High Court for relief.Alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of C.G.S.T. Act, 2017: The Court noted that an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available under Section 107 of the Act of 2017. The provision allows for appeals to be made within three months from the date of communication of the decision or order.Calculation of appeal filing period: The Court highlighted that the Appellate Authority cannot entertain an appeal filed beyond the original period of three months plus one month of the extended period. The calculation of the appeal filing period is crucial, starting from the day the decision or order appealed against is communicated to the aggrieved person.Communication of impugned order: The petitioner claimed that the impugned order was communicated to them on 27.06.2023. However, it was noted that this is a disputed question of fact that needs to be examined by the Appellate Authority.Applicability of Madras High Court decision: The petitioner relied on a Madras High Court decision regarding the service of notices under the G.S.T. Act during the initial stages of the new regime. The Court clarified that the teething issues of the new regime are over, and the provisions of the Act of 2017 should be implemented without additional implications.Disputed question of fact regarding communication of order: The Court refrained from delving into the merits of the matter and directed the petitioner to file an appeal before the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority will determine the date of communication of the impugned order and decide on the timeliness of the appeal filing. If the appeal is within the limitation period, it will be considered on its merits, provided there are no other legal impediments. As a result, the impugned order dated 09.01.2023 was set aside, granting the petitioner the liberty to pursue the appeal process.