Molana Construction Company Vs Central Goods And Service Tax Department (Rajasthan High Court)
The Rajasthan High Court recently intervened in a dispute between Molana Construction Company and the Central Goods and Service Tax Department, quashing an order that dismissed the company’s appeal as time-barred. The case highlights the interplay between statutory limitations under the CGST Act, the discretionary powers of appellate authorities, and the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Courts.
The initial order, dated June 13, 2024, by the Joint Commissioner of the Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise at Jodhpur, had dismissed Molana Construction Company’s appeal (Order in Appeal No. 430 (RSG) CGST/JDR/2024) solely on the grounds of limitation. The Joint Commissioner’s decision was based on the provisions of Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, and Circular No. 148/04/2021-GST dated May 18, 2021. These provisions stipulate a three-month period for filing an appeal, with a potential extension of one month if the appellate authority is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause.
The Joint Commissioner cited the Kerala High Court’s decision in Plenuel Nexus Private Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner Headquarter to support the position that appellate authorities, being creatures of statute, lack jurisdiction to condone delays beyond the statutorily prescribed period. The Plenuel Nexus judgment emphasized that Section 107 of the CGST Act provides an in-built mechanism for limitation, implicitly excluding the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which generally allows for condonation of delay. The Kerala High Court had clearly stated that while the appeal must be filed within 60 days, a further 30-day period can be granted by the appellate authority for condonation of delay, but no power exists to condone delay beyond this cumulative 90-day period. The reasoning in Plenuel Nexus underlined that fiscal statutes are to be strictly construed.
Comments are closed.