2024 (2) TMI 1214 - HC - GST

Statutory Time Limits Prevail: Appeal Dismissed for Exceeding Prescribed Deadline Under CGST Act Section 107

M/s Abhishek Trading Corporation Versus Commissioner (Appeals) And Another

HC upheld the appellate authority's order dismissing the appeal as time-barred under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The ... Maintainability of appeal - appeal filed by the petitioner dismissed on the ground that the same was time barred as it was filed beyond the period of four months - HELD THAT:- The Central Goods and Services Act is a special statute and a self-contained code by itself. Section 107 of the Act has an inbuilt mechanism and has impliedly excluded the application of the Limitation Act. It is trite law that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will apply only if it is extended to the special statute. Section 107 of the Act specifically provides for the limitation and in the absence of any clause condoning the delay by showing sufficient cause after the prescribed period, there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Accordingly, one cannot apply Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the aforesaid provision. In COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS M/S HONGO INDIA (P) LTD. & ANR. [2009 (3) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT], the Supreme Court has reiterated its stand and held In the absence of any clause condoning the delay by showing sufficient cause after the prescribed period, there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The High Court was, therefore, justified in holding that there was no power to condone the delay after expiry of the prescribed period of 180 days. Thus, no interference is required in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Issues:The judgment involves a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, dismissing the appeal as time-barred.Details of the Judgment:1. Issue of Time Barred Appeal:The appellate authority dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was filed beyond the prescribed period of four months. The petitioner admitted receiving the order on October 13, 2021, but filed the appeal on July 20, 2023, more than 20 months later. The court noted that the appeal was clearly filed beyond the time limit specified under Section 107 of the Act. The court emphasized that the application of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to Section 107 of the Act. The judgment cited the Supreme Court's decision in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, which emphasized the statutory limitations on condonation of delay in such cases.2. Precedents and Legal Interpretation:The judgment referred to previous Supreme Court decisions, such as Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India Private Limited, to highlight the strict statutory provisions regarding the time limit for filing appeals under special statutes like the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. The court reiterated that the Act is a self-contained code with its own mechanisms for appeals, implying exclusion of the Limitation Act. It emphasized that Section 107 of the Act specifically provides for the limitation period, and in the absence of provisions for condoning delay beyond the prescribed period, Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be applied.3. Conclusion:The court concluded that under the extraordinary jurisdiction of Article 226, it cannot interfere with the appellate authority's order due to the clear time-barred nature of the appeal. Given the specific provisions of Section 107 of the Act and the absence of clauses allowing for condonation of delay beyond the prescribed period, the court dismissed the petition, stating that no interference was warranted in this case.