Radhika Furniture @Radha Devi Vs Commissioner (Uttarakhand High Court)
The Uttarakhand High Court considered a batch of writ petitions involving the common question whether an appeal under Section 107 of the Central/State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could be entertained beyond the prescribed period of three months and the additional condonable period of one month by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Since the issue was a pure question of law common to all petitions, the Court decided it before examining the individual facts of each case.
The Court reproduced Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act, which provides that an appeal must be filed within three months from communication of the order, with the Appellate Authority having discretion under Section 107(4) to permit filing within a further period of one month upon sufficient cause being shown. The principal contention of the Revenue was that the CGST/SGST Acts constitute special statutes prescribing a complete limitation regime and that, by virtue of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, the application of Section 5 stood impliedly excluded.
The Court examined decisions of various High Courts, including Atlantis Intelligence Ltd. vs. Union of India & others, Garg Enterprises vs. State of U.P. & others, M/s Addichem Speciality LLP vs. Special Commissioner-I, Department of Trade & Taxes and another, and Nandan Steels & Power Ltd. vs. State of Chhattisgarh, all of which held that Section 107 of the CGST Act manifests a legislative intent to exclude the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act beyond the period specifically permitted under Section 107(4).
