The Rajasthan High Court ruled that writ court has ample powers to condone the delay which the GST authority can’t.
The bench noted that the CGST Act has been enacted to levy taxes on manufacture of certain goods in the form of Central Excise Duty and to consolidate certain provisions of service tax and inter-state sale of goods in the form of Central Sales Tax as also to levy tax by the State Governments on retail sales in the form of Value added Tax, entry of goods in the form of Entry Tax, Luxury Tax etc. The provisions under the CGST Act besides seeking levy and calculation of taxes are also intended to facilitate commercial and business activities. The legislative intentment in this regard is manifest in the provisions under Section 30 of the CGST Act.
The court stated that in the backdrop of such legislative intentment, the provisions under Section 107 of the CGST Act cannot be frustrated on mere technicalities. A right to appeal as provided under the statute must be decided on merits irrespective of some laches or delay on the part of the Assessee.
The bench added that this is by now too well-settled that the statutory provisions of limitation under Section 107 of the CGST Act would bind the statutory authority which cannot condone the delay except the circumstances envisaged thereunder but such limitations are not applied in a writ proceeding.
“This Court referred to the decision in “Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors. Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited” reported in (2020) 19 SCC 681, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that if the Assessee did not avail the alternative remedy of statutory appeal even within the extended period of limitation by seeking condonation of delay then a writ petition shall not be entertained. Quite apparently, the language employed in “Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (supra)” reflects that the Court has ample powers to condone the delay in preferring the appeal,” the court observed.
The bench quashed the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of CGST.
Facts
The Joint Commissioner of the CGST referred to the provisions under Section 107 and the circular No.148/04/2021- GST dated 18th May 2021 and formed an opinion that beyond the period of three months with the extended period of further one month if the appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 is not filed, the same cannot be entertained by the appellate authority.
The Joint Commissioner of the CGST further held that since the appeal is not filed within the prescribed limit, an adjudication
on merits cannot be rendered.
The Joint Commissioner of the CGST also referred to a decision in “Plenuel Nexus Private Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner Headquarter” wherein the Kerala High Court held that The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 35 makes the position crystal clear that the appellate authority has no power to allow the appeal to be presented beyond the period of 30 days. The language used makes the position clear that the legislature intended the appellate authority to entertain the appeal by condoning delay only up to 30 days after the expiry of 60 days which is the normal period for preferring appeal. Therefore, there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Commissioner and the High Court were therefore justified in holding that there was no power to condone the delay after the expiry of 30 days’ period”
Counsel for the Revenue has referred to a decision of the Court in D.B. Civil Writ No.2430/2024 “Ashok Varandan Vs. Central Baurd of Indirect Taxes and Customs & Ors.” to submit that in view of the express bar of limitation under Section 107 of the CGST Act the present writ petition is not maintainable.
Case Information
Case Name: M/s Shree Shakti Minerals v/s The Commissioner, Central Goods And Service Tax, Jaipur and Ors.
Judicial Level & Location : Rajasthan High Court
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11763/2024
Date of Decision : 25/07/2024
Decision in favor of: Petitioner
Judges: Justice Shree Chandrashekhar And Justice Kuldeep Mathur
Counsel for Petitioner : Mr. Avin Chhangani, Advs.
Counsel for Respondent : Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav
