Kerala HC rejects delayed GST appeal under Section 62 orders filed four years late

Kerala HC dismissed a writ petition challenging orders under Section 62 of CGST/SGST Act. The petitioner attempted to file an appeal in December 2023, almost four years after the February 2020 orders. The court held that it cannot extend time limits for appeals under Section 107 of CGST/SGST Acts through Article 226 jurisdiction. Additionally, the writ petition filed in 2024 suffered from inordinate delay, making it liable for dismissal despite Article 226 having no prescribed limitation period. The petition was dismissed for failure to approach the court within reasonable time.

---

---

Issues:
- Failure to file returns under CGST/SGST Acts leading to issuance of orders under Section 62
- Petitioner's attempt to file an appeal beyond the specified time limit under Section 107 of CGST/SGST Acts
- Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to extend the time limit for filing an appeal
- Application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
- Consideration of extraordinary circumstances for extending the time limit for filing an appeal
- Dismissal of a writ petition based on inordinate delay
- Evaluation of petitioner's claim of illness as a reason for delay

Analysis:

The petitioner, a contractor engaged in civil work, faced Ext.P2 orders under Section 62 of the CGST/SGST Acts due to failure in filing returns. The petitioner sought to file an appeal against these orders for months in 2018 but faced technical difficulties preventing timely appeal submission. The petitioner argued for consideration of the appeal under Writ Jurisdiction, citing a similar ruling by the Calcutta High Court regarding the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

The Government Pleader contended that the petitioner's attempt to file an appeal in December 2023, almost four years after the issuance of the orders, did not align with the provisions of Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Acts. The Government Pleader emphasized that no grounds existed for invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India to extend the appeal timeline beyond what was specified by the Acts.

The Court, after hearing both parties, concluded that the petitioner failed to establish a case for relief under Article 226. The Court highlighted that the attempt to file an appeal after almost four years did not comply with the statutory time limit under Section 107. Referring to previous judgments, the Court emphasized the limitations on extending appeal timelines under relevant Acts.

The Court referenced a previous judgment to illustrate that while Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 might not apply, Section 14 could be invoked in exceptional cases. The Court emphasized the need for extraordinary circumstances to warrant extending the appeal filing deadline, citing a specific case where such relief was granted based on unique circumstances.

Additionally, the Court noted that while Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not specify a limitation period for filing a writ petition, inordinate delays can lead to dismissal. The Court highlighted the significant delay between the issuance of orders and the filing of the writ petition in this case as a reason for denying relief.

The Court also expressed skepticism regarding the petitioner's claim of illness as a reason for the delay in filing the writ petition. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition, citing the lack of extraordinary circumstances, inordinate delay, and questionable reasons provided by the petitioner for the delay.

---