Appeal filed within three months of actual receipt date satisfies Section 107(1) CGST Act limitation requirements

The Bombay HC held that petitioner's appeal under CGST Act was within limitation period. Despite respondents' contention that order was communicated via email on 4th April 2022, court found petitioner received order on 20th September 2022 based on petitioner's letter dated 9th September 2022 stating non-receipt of order. Since appeal was filed on 20th December 2022, within three months of actual communication date, it satisfied Section 107(1) CGST Act requirements. HC set aside tribunal's order dismissing appeal as time-barred and directed respondent to decide appeal on merits. Petitioner's appeal was restored.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Petitioner's Appeal was time-barred.
2. Whether Respondent No. 2 considered all relevant factors while deciding the issue of limitation.

Summary:

Issue 1: Whether the Petitioner's Appeal was time-barred.

The Petitioner challenged the Order dated 25th October 2023, which dismissed their Appeal as time-barred. The Petitioner argued that they received the Order dated 31st March 2022 only on 20th September 2022 and filed the Appeal on 20th December 2022, within the statutory period of three months as per Section 107 of the CGST Act. The Respondents contended that the Order was served via e-mail on 4th April 2022, making the Appeal filed on 20th December 2022 beyond the limitation period. The Court found that the Petitioner had not received the Order on 4th April 2022 and accepted the Petitioner's submission that they received it on 20th September 2022. Therefore, the Appeal filed on 20th December 2022 was within the limitation period.

Issue 2: Whether Respondent No. 2 considered all relevant factors while deciding the issue of limitation.

The Court observed that Respondent No. 2 failed to consider the Petitioner's letter dated 9th September 2022, which indicated that the Petitioner was unaware of the Order dated 31st March 2022 until 20th September 2022. The Court had previously directed Respondent No. 2 to consider all factors while deciding the limitation issue. However, Respondent No. 2 concluded that the Appeal was time-barred based on the alleged e-mail communication on 4th April 2022, without addressing the Petitioner's letter. The Court held that the contents of the letter clearly showed that the Petitioner had not received the Order before 9th September 2022.

Findings and Orders:

The Court set aside the Order dated 25th October 2023, restoring the Petitioner's Appeal to the file of the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) - (II) Mumbai, directing it to be decided on merits. The Additional Commissioner (Appeals) was instructed to dispose of the Appeal in accordance with the law, providing adequate opportunity for a hearing to the Petitioner, and to do so within eight weeks from the date a copy of the Order is presented. All contentions on merit were kept open, and no order as to costs was made.

---