2024 (11) TMI 259 - HC - GST

GST appeals beyond time limit allowed under Article 226 despite Appellate Authority's correct rejection

M/s Vasudeva Engineering, M/s. LNM Fire, M/s Yellow Lilly Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., M/s. A One Trader, M/s. Radhe Enterprises, FPI Auto Parts India Private Limited, M/s Himalyan Ply Boards, Sukhbir Singh, M/s Mukesh Enterprises, M/s Kbeera Hydraulic Engineers Private Limited, M/s Tricool India Gurugram, M/s Sai Furnace and Technologies, M/s Baba Chhunni Trading Co., M/s Sadhu Ram, Sunita Rani, Safle Network Private Limited and Kamal Arora. Versus The Union of India and others, State of Haryana and others, State of Punjab and others.

The HC allowed 17 writ petitions challenging the Appellate Authority's rejection of GST appeals filed beyond the statutory time limit under Haryana Goods ... Time limit for filing appeals - whether the Appellate Authority hearing appeals in terms of Section 107 of the Act was legally correct in rejecting the appeals which had been filed after the requisite time period laid down in Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? - HELD THAT:- It is found that while the petitioners had paid the pre-deposit for hearing on the appeal, it is an admitted position that the appeals had been filed beyond the limitation period that even beyond the period which could be condoned under the provisions of Section 107 and 35 (1) of the Act while the said provision provides for a period of three months for filing of an appeal with additional period of 30 days for condonation, the provisions under Section 107 are not condemnable to Limitation Act and therefore, the delay cannot be further condoned. The condonation being provided under the Act itself. In view thereto, the action of the Appellate Authority in rejecting the appeals cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Tecnimont Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and others [2019 (9) TMI 788 - SUPREME COURT], the similar issue relating to non-deposit of in cases where the pre-deposit had not been made, and the appeals were rejected before the Supreme Court where the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the order was not unjustified in rejecting the appeals but left it open for the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 considering the facts of each case to condone the requirement of pre-deposit. The cancellation of registration of GST has cascading effect on all the other businessman too who are receiving the goods from the concerned businessmen whose GST registration has been cancelled. Therefore, in these circumstances, it is essential that a finality should be arrived at between the decision taken for cancellation of the registration and also at the same time remedy should be available which is efficacious to the concerned aggrieved person. The powers to hear the appeal in terms of Section 107 of the Act would not be subject to filing of an appeal within the time prescribed wherein, it would not in any manner deprive a person from claiming the right of hearing of an appeal by filing of a writ petition before this Court for condonation of delay. Petition allowed. Issues:1. Interpretation of provisions under Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 regarding the time limit for filing appeals.2. Authority of the Appellate Authority to reject appeals filed beyond the prescribed time period.3. Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 to condone delay in filing appeals.4. Balancing relief to businessmen with the need for finality in decisions regarding GST registration cancellation.5. Whether filing an appeal within the prescribed time limit is a prerequisite for hearing an appeal under Section 107 of the Act.Analysis:1. The judgment addresses 17 writ petitions involving a common issue regarding the legality of the Appellate Authority's rejection of appeals filed after the time period specified in the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioners had paid the pre-deposit for the appeal but filed beyond the statutory limitation period, which could not be condoned under the Act. The Appellate Authority's rejection of the appeals was deemed legal, citing the provisions of the Act. However, the High Court noted precedents where it exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 to condone delays in specific cases.2. The Court referred to a Supreme Court case highlighting the importance of pre-deposit and the power of the High Court to intervene under Article 226. It emphasized that while the Appellate Authority must adhere to the Act's provisions, the High Court retains the authority to consider appeals on their merits, irrespective of delay or limitation issues. This underscores the balance between statutory provisions and the court's discretionary powers.3. The judgment underscores the purpose of the Act in providing relief to businessmen facing wrongful demands and the importance of ensuring an effective remedy for aggrieved parties. It notes the cascading effects of GST registration cancellations on other businesses and highlights the need for a balance between finality in decisions and providing efficacious remedies to affected individuals.4. The Court held that the power to hear appeals under Section 107 of the Act is not contingent upon filing within the prescribed time limit. It affirmed that individuals can seek the right to appeal by filing a writ petition for condonation of delay, emphasizing the importance of ensuring access to justice for aggrieved parties.5. Ultimately, the Court allowed the petitions, directing the Appellate Authority to hear and decide the appeals on their merits within a stipulated time frame. It disposed of pending applications and emphasized the importance of balancing statutory provisions with the court's discretionary powers to ensure justice and relief to affected parties.