Limitation under Section 85(3A): service complete on receipt of full order, appeal filed within condonable month allowed.

Limitation under Section 85(3A) was assessed by focusing on when service of an adjudication order is complete and how calendar months are computed; the Tribunal held service is complete only upon receipt of a full copy containing reasons, so the limitation period began the day after receipt of the complete order. Applying the two-month statutory period plus a one-month condonable calendar-month, the appeal filed within the condonable month was not time-barred. The Tribunal set aside the rejection as barred by time, condoned delay and remitted the matter for adjudication on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal filed by the Appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined (i) when service of the adjudication order on the Appellant was completed, having regard to the fact that an incomplete copy (missing pages) was initially received on 27.10.2023 and a complete copy was obtained on 07.12.2023; (ii) the period of limitation prescribed under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 which provides a two months period and a further condonable period of one month expressed in terms of calendar months; and (iii) applicable principles for computing calendar months as explained by higher courts and statutes. The Tribunal held that service is complete only when a full copy containing reasons is served, and therefore 27.10.2023 (when an incomplete copy was received) could not be treated as the date of service. Accepting the un-rejected contention that a complete copy was served on 07.12.2023, the limitation period under Section 85(3A) commenced from 08.12.2023. Applying the calendar-month rule, two months expired on 08.02.2024 and the further one-month condonable period expired on 08.03.2024. The appeal presented on 08.03.2024 therefore fell within the condonable period. The Tribunal, noting that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not rejected the Appellant's factual contentions regarding service and missing pages, concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in rejecting the appeal as time-barred. Considering the undisputed nature of the delay explanations and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal condoned the delay and remitted the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits.

Conclusion: The appeal was not barred by limitation; the delay is condoned and the appeal is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits (in favour of Appellant).

---