TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Time Spent in Wrong Forum Deemed Excludable, Appeal Deadline Extended Under Limitation Act Section 14</h1> <h3>M/s. Sree Krishna Hot Dip Galvanizers Versus State of Karnataka, The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement), Tumkur, The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka), The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) -3</h3> HC allowed petitioner's appeal challenging dismissal under Section 107 of CGST/KGST Act. Court found time spent before wrong forum excludable under ... Maintainability of appeal before the appellant authority - Exclusion of certain period and condonation of delay - Scope of 107 of the CGST / KGST Act, 2017 - dismissal on the ground of the limitation - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent will indicate that the sole ground on which the appeal was dismissed was as being barred by limitation in the light of the prescribed period contained in Section 107 of the KGST Act, 2017. While it is true that Section 29(2) of the Limitation 1963 excludes the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act for the purpose of condonation of delay is concerned, Section 14 of the Limitation Act which excludes time spent before a wrong / incorrect forum for the purpose of concluding the prescribed period is applicable to an appeal preferred under Section 107 of the KGST Act in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL ACQUISITION OFFICER, BANGALORE v/s M/s. S.V GLOBAL MILL LIMITED. [2019 (9) TMI 1717 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]. It is also necessary to point out that as per circular issued by the CBIT, the period prescribed for preferring the appeal has been extended up to 31.01.2024 and on this ground also, respondent committed an error in issuing the impugned endorsement which deserves to be set aside, quashed and necessary directions are to be issued to the respondent to consider the appeal on merits without reference to the issue/question of limitation which stands concluded in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No. 4 – Appellate Authority is directed to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law without reference to the issue/question of limitation which stands concluded in favour of the petitioner under this order - Petition allowed. Issues involved: Appeal dismissal on the ground of limitation under Section 107 of the CGST / KGST Act, 2017.Summary:Issue 1: Appeal dismissed on limitation groundsThe petitioner filed an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST / KGST Act, 2017, which was dismissed by the respondents citing limitation. The petitioner had initially appealed to the wrong forum, realizing the mistake later and then filed a fresh appeal seeking an extension of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The petitioner also relied on a notification extending the time for preferred appeals. The respondents justified the dismissal, stating that the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period. The impugned endorsement solely cited limitation as the reason for dismissal.Issue 2: Applicability of Limitation ActThe judgment referred to Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, which excludes the applicability of Section 5 for condonation of delay. However, Section 14 of the Limitation Act, excluding time spent before the wrong forum, is applicable to appeals under Section 107 of the KGST Act. The judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in a specific case was also cited to support this interpretation.Issue 3: Extension of appeal periodA circular issued by the CBIT extended the period for appealing up to 31.01.2024. The petitioner argued that this extension, along with the error in issuing the impugned endorsement, warranted setting it aside. The court allowed the petition, set aside the endorsement, and directed the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal on merits without reference to the limitation issue, which was decided in favor of the petitioner.This summary encapsulates the key issues and details of the judgment, highlighting the legal arguments and decisions made by the court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
