2024 (1) TMI 1096 - HC - GST

Delay condonation u/s 107 WBGST/CGST upheld, appellate authority must consider appeals filed within extended limitation period

HC held that the appellate authority under the WBGST Act, 2017 read with the CGST Act, 2017 has jurisdiction to condone delay in filing an appeal beyond ... Power of appellate authority to condone delay - applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - condonation of delay - exercise of jurisdiction by appellate authority - remand to appellate authority to decide on meritsPower of appellate authority to condone delay - applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - Appellate authority possessed jurisdiction to condone delay in preferring the appeal under the WBGST Act read with the Limitation Act, 1963. - HELD THAT: - The Court followed the Division Bench decision in S.K. Chakraborty & Sons , which construed the corresponding provision of the Act of 2017 and held that the special statute does not expressly or impliedly exclude the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963. By reference to Section 29(2) of the Act of 1963 and the absence of any non obstante clause in Section 107 of the Act of 2017, Section 5 of the Limitation Act remains attracted and permits discretionary extension of time by the appellate authority. Consequently, the appellate authority erred in holding that it had no scope to condone delay beyond the period specified in the GST statute and thereby failed to exercise its jurisdiction. [Paras 11, 12]The appellate authority had the power to condone delay and its blanket refusal on the ground that no such power exists was incorrect.Condonation of delay - exercise of jurisdiction by appellate authority - remand to appellate authority to decide on merits - Whether the petitioner had shown sufficient cause for the delay and the consequence of condoning delay. - HELD THAT: - Having found that the appellate authority possessed jurisdiction to entertain a condonation request, the Court examined the reasons and supporting medical prescriptions appended to FORM GST APL-01. The Court accepted that the petitioner's serious medical condition and treatment constituted sufficient cause for the delayed filing. The Court therefore exercised its supervisory jurisdiction to condone the delay, restored the appeal to the appellate authority and directed that the appeal be considered on merits after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. [Paras 14, 16, 17, 18, 19]Delay in presenting the appeal is condoned; appeal restored to the appellate authority which is directed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the petitioner.Final Conclusion: Writ petition allowed: appellate authority's order rejecting the appeal as barred by limitation was set aside; delay condoned on grounds of sufficient cause and the appeal is restored to the appellate authority for fresh adjudication on merits after affording hearing. Issues involved:The petitioner challenged the order of the Senior Joint Commissioner of Revenue, Jalpaiguri Circle, rejecting the appeal due to delay beyond the statutory period.Judgment Details:Issue 1: Challenge to rejection of appeal due to delay- The petitioner cited reasons for delay, including health issues requiring treatment in Delhi.- The appellate authority rejected the appeal based on lack of power to condone the delay.- The Hon'ble Division Bench held that the appellate authority can exercise jurisdiction beyond the prescribed period.- Section 107 of the Act of 2017 does not exclude the applicability of the Act of 1963.- The appellate authority has the discretion to allow an appeal beyond the limitation specified in Section 107.- The court found the petitioner had sufficient cause for the delay.- The delay in presenting the appeal was condoned, and the appeal was restored for consideration on merit.Conclusion:The High Court allowed the petition, directing the appellate authority to consider the appeal on merit and decide accordingly. The court emphasized the importance of considering sufficient cause for delay and upheld the petitioner's appeal based on legal provisions and precedents.