TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 245
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing authority may appeal to such Appellate Authority as may be prescribed within three months from the date on which the said decision or order is communicated to such person." Further as per Rule 108(1) of CGST Rule 2017, "An appeal to the Appellate Authority under sub-section (1) of section 107 shall be filed in FORM GST APL-01, along with the relevant documents, either electronically or otherwise as may be notified by the Commissioner, and a provisional acknowledgement shall be issued to the appellant immediately." 5.2 In the present appeal, the Order of Demand of Tax and Penalty (FORM GST MOV-11) was issued on 09.03.2020 and communicated to the appellant on 10.09.2020 against which appeal has been filed. I observe that the appeal in this matter has been filed on 22.04.2024 by the appellant. Therefore, the present appeal has not been filed in due time, not within the stipulated time prescribed under Section 107 of the Act. I find that the appeal is time barred and delay is not condonable at this point. 6. In view of the discussion and findings above, I passed the following order" 2. Shri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel assisted by Ms. Upas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Kanpur by letter dated 09.02.2024 to transfer the appeal to the competent appellate authority. The Commissioner, CGST, Kanpur responded by communication dated 22.03.2024 asserting that there was no mechanism for transferring the appeal from the CGST Kanpur to the competent appellate authority. Upon receipt of the aforesaid communication, the petitioner promptly filed a fresh appeal before the competent appellate authority, namely, Additional Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Central Excise, Allahabad on 22.04.2024. The appeal was registered as Appeal No. 175/GST/APPL/Alld/2024. 8. The said appeal was thereafter rejected by the appellate authority by the impugned order dated 05.11.2024. 9. It needs to be mentioned that pleadings regarding specific assertions made by the petitioner with regard to filing of the appeal before the Commissioner, CGST, Kanpur and the subsequent communications dated 19.08.2023 and 09.02.2024 have not been traversed by revenue authorities in the counter affidavit. In view of the aforesaid pleadings this Court finds that the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Commissioner CGST, Kanpur on 04.11.2020. 10. The question that now arises in the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....done delay has been specifically provided under Section 107(4) of the Act, that is a special Act, it amounts to necessary and automatic exclusion of the general principle contained in Section 5 of the Limitation Act. On that point, the decisions of the Supreme Court in Hongo India (supra) and Glaxo Smith Kline (supra) specifically hold the field. In Hongo India (supra), it has been observed as below: "32. As pointed out earlier, the language used in Sections 35, 35-B, 35-EE, 35-G and 35-H makes the position clear that an appeal and reference to the High Court should be made within 180 days only from the date of communication of the decision or order. In other words, the language used in other provisions makes the position clear that the legislature intended the appellate authority to entertain the appeal by condoning the delay only up to 30 days after expiry of 60 days which is the preliminary limitation period for preferring an appeal. In the absence of any clause condoning the delay by showing sufficient cause after the prescribed period, there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The High Court was, therefore, justified in holding that there was no ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pplicability of the underlying principle of Section 14 of the Limitation Act may be read in the Act, even though it remains a special Act. As summarized by the Supreme Court in M.P. Steel (supra), Section 14 is a beneficial piece of legislation-to further the cause of justice where a person pursues a case with due diligence. He may not be non-suited occasioned by a mistake of seeking remedy before a wrong forum. Thus, the underlying principle of Section 14 recognizes-that it applies to persons (claiming its benefit), who may have admittedly made a mistake. Only then, the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act may arise and not otherwise. As to what nature of mistake may lead to application of Section 14 of the Act, it is clear that it may be in the nature of lack of jurisdiction or defect of like nature (construed liberally). As to the wrong forum before whom, such mistake may have been committed, Section 14 is categorical. It includes in its scope, proceedings instituted before the original authority. 27. Seen in that light, an application seeking rectification of mistake was, filed by way of a remedy exits on the statute book. It lies before the authority that....