A V Construction Vs Commissioner And 2 Others (Allahabad High Court)
Allahabad High Court has upheld an order by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax, Varanasi, dismissing an appeal filed by A V Construction as time-barred. The court ruled that the appellate authority committed no error in rejecting the appeal due to a significant delay of over 19 months.
The case originated from an order dated September 19, 2019, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax, Varanasi. A V Construction subsequently filed an appeal against this order on August 5, 2021.
According to Section 107(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), an appeal against such an order must be filed within three months from the date of its communication. Section 107(4) of the same Act provides a limited provision for condonation of delay, allowing the appellate authority to condone a delay not exceeding one month beyond the initial three-month period, provided sufficient cause is shown.
In this instance, the appeal was filed well beyond the stipulated three-month period, with the delay amounting to 19 months and 17 days. The petitioner, A V Construction, attributed the delay to the illness of the petitioner.
The Allahabad High Court, in its judgment, emphasized that Section 107(2) read in conjunction with Section 107(4) of the Act constitutes a comprehensive legal framework concerning the limitation period for filing appeals under the Act. The court explicitly stated that the principles enshrined in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which generally allows for the condonation of delay in filing appeals or applications under certain circumstances, would not be applicable in cases where a specific law, such as the GST Act, provides a complete code for the limitation period.
The bench observed that the substantial delay of 19 months and 17 days far exceeded the permissible one-month extension allowed under Section 107(4) of the GST Act. Consequently, the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) was legally correct in dismissing the appeal as time-barred.
Dismissing the writ petition filed by A V Construction, the High Court concluded that the petition lacked merit. However, the court clarified that its dismissal would not preclude the petitioner from pursuing any other legal remedies that might be available under the law.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
