2025 (10) TMI 963 - HC - GST

Appellate order set aside where time awaiting rectification excluded from limitation; appeal remitted for merits

M/s. Arvind Fashion Limited Versus State Of Haryana And Others

HC set aside the appellate order that had dismissed the petitioner's appeal as time-barred, holding the period spent awaiting determination of a ... Dismissal of appeal on the ground of delay without excluding the period spent by petitioner in pursuing the application u/s 161, seeking rectification of order - order was suffering from patent error and mistake apparent on record - rectification application rejected without any notice to petitioner and without providing him any opportunity of hearing and without advertence to the facts of case - HELD THAT:- The rectification application was filed well within the period of limitation and appeal u/s 107 of HGST/CGST Act was filed within two days of passing of order dated 28.01.2025, dismissing the application seeking rectification. Appellate authority in impugned order dared 06.02.2025 has dismissed the appeal while holding that it is time barred as it was filed 109 days beyond the period of limitation of three months. It is stated that appeal has been filed beyond the period of limitation of three months for challenging order dated 15.07.2024 as it was filed on 30.01.2025 and is, thus, delayed by 109 days. In the given factual matrix, where petitioner was admittedly awaiting decision upon its rectification application it cannot be held that there was delay in filing of the appeal. There are no merit in the argument raised by learned counsel for respondents to the effect that it was open to petitioner to have filed an appeal alongside the rectification application. This needless to say would lead to an anomalous situation. In a scenario where petitioner’s rectification application may have been allowed, there was a possibility that filing of appeal would not even be necessary. In such a scenario, rectification, if made, would have merged in the original order. In the given factual matrix, it cannot be assumed and presumed that period of limitation to challenge original assessment order would begin from the date on which it was passed and the period spent during pendency of rectification application is not to be excluded. The order dated 06.02.2025 passed by Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals)-cum-Appellate Authority, Gurugram, Haryana is set aside and the matter remitted to Appellate Authority to decide the same on the merits of matter in accordance with law. Petition disposed off by way of remand. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the period consumed in pursuing a rectification application filed under Section 161 of the HGST/CGST Act must be excluded while computing the period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the HGST/CGST Act against the original assessment order. 2. Whether an appellate authority may dismiss an appeal as time-barred where the appellant filed a rectification application within the statutory period and filed the appeal immediately on dismissal of that rectification application. 3. Whether it was open to the appellant to file an appeal simultaneously with a pending rectification application and, if so, whether failure to do so precludes exclusion of time spent in rectification proceedings. 4. Whether the High Court should entertain writ jurisdiction in the facts where the statutory tribunal under the HGST/CGST Act has not commenced hearings. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Exclusion of time spent pursuing rectification under Section 161 for purposes of limitation under Section 107 Legal framework: Section 161 permits rectification of errors apparent on the face of the record within three months (subject to a six-month cap and certain provisos) and requires principles of natural justice where rectification adversely affects any person. Section 107(1) prescribes a three-month limitation for appeals against adjudication orders; Section 107(4) provides a one-month condonation power where sufficient cause is shown. Precedent Treatment: The Court's analysis proceeds without reference to prior binding authorities; no earlier decisions were relied upon in the judgment. Interpretation and reasoning: Where an affected person filed a rectification application within the statutory three-month window and thereafter awaited the outcome, the period consumed in pursuing the rectification application cannot be counted against the period of limitation for appeal. The reasoning emphasises practical and purposive construction: allowing the period to run while rectification remains pending would produce an anomaly-an appeal might be rendered unnecessary if rectification is allowed and would mean penalising a party for seeking correction of an apparent error. The Court finds no basis to impute a duty on the applicant to file an appeal concurrently with the rectification proceeding when the outcome of rectification could moot the appeal. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio. The Court's holding that time spent in bona fide rectification proceedings filed within the statutory period must be excluded for computation of the limitation for appeal is a direct legal conclusion necessary for the decision. Conclusions: Time spent pursuing a rectification application filed under Section 161 within the three-month period is to be excluded when computing the three-month limitation for filing an appeal under Section 107. Dismissing an appeal as barred on the ground that it was filed after the original three-month period, without excluding time consumed in rectification proceedings, is unsustainable where the rectification application was bona fide and filed within time. Issue 2: Validity of dismissal of appeal as time-barred where appeal filed immediately after rejection of rectification Legal framework: Section 107(1)-(6) set time for appeal and pre-deposit requirements; Section 161 prescribes limitation for rectification and safeguards of natural justice. Precedent Treatment: No precedents were cited; the Court applied statutory interpretation to the facts. Interpretation and reasoning: Where the rectification application was filed within time and the appellant filed the appeal immediately on rejection of that rectification application (with requisite pre-deposit promptly made), the appellate authority erred in deeming the appeal time-barred by calculating limitation solely from the date of the original order. The Court emphasises the absence of any pleaded mala fides or ulterior motive in pursuing rectification and accepts that the appellant acted promptly at each stage. The appellate authority's mechanical computation disregarded the legitimate suspension of limitation while rectification was pending. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio. The decision to set aside the dismissal and remit for adjudication on merits is grounded in the legal conclusion that the appeal was not time-barred after proper exclusion of the rectification period. Conclusions: The impugned order dismissing the appeal on limitation grounds is set aside; the matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority for adjudication on merits after treating the period of rectification as excluded. Issue 3: Whether filing an appeal alongside a rectification application is obligatory and the consequence of not doing so Legal framework: Statutory scheme allows rectification (Section 161) and appeal (Section 107) within prescribed periods; Section 107(4) allows limited extension for sufficient cause. Precedent Treatment: No contrary authority was cited; Court reasoned from statutory purpose. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court rejects the contention that an affected person must file an appeal simultaneously with a rectification application to preserve rights. Such a requirement would be anomalous and penalise taxpayers who legitimately seek rectification of an order that may obviate the need for an appeal. The Court notes the practical consequence that a permitted rectification would merge with and alter the original order, potentially rendering any appeal unnecessary. Therefore, the absence of a contemporaneous appeal does not, by itself, defeat the right to have rectification time excluded from reckoning limitation. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio. This conclusion is necessary to the Court's determination that the appeal was timely when rectification time is excluded. Conclusions: Filing an appeal alongside a pending rectification application is not obligatory; failure to do so does not automatically preclude exclusion of time spent in rectification for limitation purposes, where the rectification was bona fide and filed within the statutory period. Issue 4: Entertaining writ jurisdiction where statutory tribunal has not commenced hearings Legal framework: Ordinary principles of writ jurisdiction permit relief where alternative efficacious remedy is absent or ineffective; here the statutory appellate forum had not commenced hearings. Precedent Treatment: The Court did not rely on specific authorities but treated the absence of an operational tribunal as a pragmatic ground for entertaining the writ. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted the petition since the Tribunal constituted under the HGST/CGST Act had not begun hearing matters, which would render pursuit of the statutory remedy ineffective or inadequately efficacious within a reasonable timeframe. This justified exercise of writ jurisdiction to prevent prejudice to the petitioner's right to appeal. Ratio vs. Obiter: Obiter/Incidental to relief. While not central to the statutory interpretation issues, the decision to entertain writ jurisdiction is a dispositive practical finding supporting grant of relief in the factual matrix. Conclusions: Writ jurisdiction was rightly exercised in the circumstances where the Tribunal had not commenced hearings, and the petitioner would otherwise be deprived of an effective forum to challenge the appellate dismissal. Disposition and Directions (cross-reference) The appellate authority's order dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on merits after treating the period spent in pursuance of the rectification application under Section 161 as excluded when computing the limitation under Section 107. No expression of opinion is made on the merits of the underlying assessment; the remand is for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.