Maintainability of appeals under Central Goods and Services Act: limitation under Section 107 excludes general Limitation Act relief, time barred appeals dismissed

Per the analysis, appeals under the Central Goods and Services framework are governed by the specific limitation scheme in the Acts provision relating to appeals, which by its terms and structure operates as a self-contained code and precludes invocation of the general Limitation Acts extension or condonation provisions. Because the statutory appeal period is explicit and contains no provision for condoning delay, the general remedy for extension of limitation cannot be applied, resulting in dismissal of appeals filed beyond the prescribed period and refusal of extraordinary jurisdiction to override that statutory time bar.

---

---

Issues:
The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on the grounds of being time-barred.

Summary:
The petitioner filed a writ petition aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority dismissing the appeal as time-barred, being filed after 28 months from the date of the order. The Court held that under the extraordinary jurisdiction, interference with the appellate authority's order was not possible as the Limitation Act does not apply to Section 107 of the Act.

The Supreme Court precedent in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise established that the appellate authority does not have the power to condone delays beyond the permissible period provided under the statute. Similarly, in Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India Private Limited, it was reiterated that the High Court cannot condone delays in filing references under the Act.

The Court emphasized that the Central Goods and Services Act is a self-contained code, and Section 107 of the Act has impliedly excluded the application of the Limitation Act. As Section 107 specifically provides for the limitation without any clause for condonation of delay, Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be applied. Therefore, the petition was dismissed as no interference was warranted in the matter.

---