Case Law Details
Murli Packers Through Its Proprietor Rakesh Kumar Jain Vs State of U P Through Secretary (Allahabad High Court)
Introduction: The Allahabad High Court recently addressed a crucial matter involving Murli Packers in a case against the State of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner challenged the dismissal of an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, citing limitation issues. This article delves into the details of the case and the court’s decision.
Detailed Analysis: The petitioner, Murli Packers, had initially filed an appeal before the wrong jurisdiction, the Additional Commissioner, Grade-II (Appeals) Saharanpur, on June 14, 2019, challenging the registration cancellation order dated April 4, 2019. Realizing the error, the petitioner withdrew the appeal and filed a fresh one before the correct jurisdiction, the respondent no.3/Additional Commissioner, CGST, (Appeals), Meerut, on August 29, 2019.
The central issue revolved around the dismissal of the appeal by the authority on grounds of being time-barred. The petitioner argued for the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to extend the timeline for filing the appeal. The court, after hearing both parties, found merit in the petitioner’s submission.
In its judgment, the Allahabad High Court quashed the impugned order dated October 15, 2019, and directed the respondent 3/Additional Commissioner, CGST, (Appeals), Meerut, to grant the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to the petitioner. The court emphasized that if, after considering Section 14, the appeal is within the stipulated time, it should be heard on its merits.
Conclusion: The court’s decision in favor of Murli Packers sets a precedent for extending the benefit of time exclusion under Section 14 of the Limitation Act to appeals under Section 107 of the CGST Act. This ruling ensures that procedural errors, such as filing in the wrong jurisdiction, do not unduly penalize petitioners. The case underscores the significance of a fair and just interpretation of limitations in legal proceedings.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Heard Sri Subham Agarwal, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Amit Mahajan, counsel appearing on behalf of department.
2. This is an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed in appeal filed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated October 15, 2019, wherein the authority has dismissed the appeal on the ground that the same is barred by limitation.
3. The factual aspects in fact indicates that the appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner, Grade-II (Appeals) Saharanpur on June 14, 2019 challenging the registration cancellation order dated April 4, 2019. However, it appears that the appeal filed had been in the wrong jurisdiction, and accordingly, petitioner withdrew the same and filed a fresh appeal before correct jurisdiction i.e. the respondent no.3/Additional Commissioner, CGST, (Appeals), Meerut, on August 29, 2019.
4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that if the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act is given to the petitioner, then the said appeal would not be time barred under Section 107 of the Act.
5. I find merit in the submission of counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and accordingly, I quash and set aside the impugned order dated October 15, 2019 and direct the respondent 3/Additional Commissioner, CGST, (Appeals), Meerut, to grant benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to the petitioner and hear the appeal afresh. If after granting the benefit of Section 14 the petitioner’s appeal is filed within time, the appeal shall be heard on merits.
6. In light of the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of.
Author Bio
