Appellate authorities can condone delays beyond one-month limit under Section 107(4) of GST Act

The Calcutta HC ruled that appellate authorities under the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 have jurisdiction to condone delays beyond the prescribed one-month limitation period under Section 107(4). Following the Division Bench precedent in S.K. Chakraborty Sons and Supreme Court guidance, the court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies in absence of a non obstante clause or specific exclusion. The appellate authority erred in refusing to entertain the delay condonation application. Finding the petitioner's explanation satisfactory, the HC condoned the delay and restored the appeal.

---

---

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

Summary:
The petitioner filed an appeal challenging a determination made u/s 73 of the said Act, but it was filed beyond the limitation period and accompanied by an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The appellate authority rejected the application for condonation of delay and consequently the appeal. The petitioner contended that the appellate authority failed to exercise its jurisdiction by rejecting the application. The petitioner argued that there is no implied bar in the said Act for condoning the delay beyond the prescribed period. The petitioner relied on a judgment of a Division Bench of the Court to support the argument that Section 5 of the Limitation Act should apply.

The State respondents argued that the appellate authority has no power to condone the delay beyond one month from the prescribed period of 90 days, as provided in Section 107(4) of the said Act. They contended that the said Act excludes the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, even though not expressly excluded. They cited a judgment from the Allahabad High Court to support their position.

After considering the arguments and materials, the Court addressed the legal issue of whether the appellate authority had failed to exercise jurisdiction in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. The Court referred to previous judgments and concluded that the appellate authority is not deprived of its power to condone the delay beyond one month from the prescribed period. The Court found that the appellate authority erred in refusing to entertain the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court set aside the order of the appellate authority and directed the appeal to be heard on its merits within a month.

In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of without any order as to costs, and the parties were directed to comply with necessary formalities to obtain a certified copy of the order.

---