GST appellate authority must consider delay condonation applications under Section 5 Limitation Act through Section 29(2)

The HC set aside the appellate authority's order rejecting an appeal under Section 107 of the West Bengal GST Act, 2017 for delay. Following the Division Bench precedent in S.K. Chakraborty Sons v. Union of India and Supreme Court guidance, the court held that absent a non obstante clause or specific exclusion, Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 applies through Section 29(2). The appellate authority retains power to condone delays beyond the prescribed one-month period and failed to properly exercise jurisdiction in rejecting the condonation application filed beyond four months from the communicated order.

---

---

Issues involved: Challenge to refusal of appellate authority to condone delay in maintaining appeal u/s 107 of West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Summary:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the refusal of the appellate authority to condone the delay in maintaining the appeal under Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner had filed an appeal beyond the limitation period accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The appellate authority rejected the application for condonation of delay and disposed of the appeal. The petitioner argued that the appellate authority failed to exercise jurisdiction by not condoning the delay, while the State contended that the provisions of the Act exclude the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

In the judgment, it was noted that an identical issue had been considered by a Division Bench of the Court previously. The Court held that the appellate authority is not devoid of power to condone the delay beyond one month from the prescribed period of limitation as provided for in Section 107(4) of the Act. Another Division Bench had also held that the statute does not prohibit the appellate authority from exercising jurisdiction beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The Court found that the appellate authority had failed to exercise jurisdiction in refusing to consider the application for condonation of delay properly and set aside the order rejecting the appeal.

The Court further held that the explanation provided by the petitioner in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was satisfactory, and the delay in preferring the appeal was condoned. The appellate authority was directed to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits within two months without unnecessary adjournments. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

---