Case Law Details
Yadav Scrap Traders Vs Additional Commissioner And Another (Allahabad High Court)
HC upheld dismissal of appeal under Section 107 of GST Act due to a delay of 73 day
In the case of Yadav Scrap Traders v. Additional Commissioner and Another, the Allahabad High Court dealt with a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an appeal under Section 107 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act) on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner’s appeal was dismissed because it was filed 73 days beyond the prescribed time limit.
The crux of the petitioner’s argument was centered on the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows for the condonation of delay if sufficient cause is shown. The petitioner relied on a judgment from the Calcutta High Court, contending that Section 5 should be applicable to Section 107 of the GST Act, as the latter does not expressly exclude its application.
However, the Allahabad High Court, referencing its own precedents and interpretations from other High Courts, including the Kerala High Court, held that the GST Act constitutes a special statute with its own self-contained code. It observed that Section 107 of the GST Act explicitly sets forth a limitation period for filing appeals, and it does not contain provisions allowing for the condonation of delay beyond the specified limits.
The court cited its decision in M/s Abhishek Trading Corporation v. Commissioner (Appeals), where it emphasized that Section 107 of the GST Act is specific in its limitation provisions and does not permit the extension of time under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. This stance was reaffirmed in subsequent cases such as Penuel Nexus Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner Headquarters and Garg Enterprises v. State of U.P., both of which underscored the self-contained nature of the GST Act and its exclusion of general provisions like those found in the Limitation Act.
Further elucidating on the importance of limitation periods in tax statutes like the GST Act, the court highlighted that these provisions are crucial for ensuring timely resolution of disputes. Such timely resolution not only promotes efficiency in tax administration but also provides legal certainty for both taxpayers and tax authorities. The court emphasized that tax laws are designed with stringent procedural requirements to maintain fiscal discipline and prevent undue delays in the collection and adjudication of taxes.
Regarding the petitioner’s reliance on the Calcutta High Court’s judgment, the Allahabad High Court noted that it diverged from the Supreme Court’s authoritative interpretations in similar matters. It reiterated that decisions under the GST Act must adhere strictly to its provisions and the legislative intent behind them, rather than applying general principles from other statutes.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the appeal was rightly dismissed due to its untimely filing. It reiterated that Section 107 of the GST Act operates as a complete code regarding limitation periods for filing appeals, thereby precluding the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated January 23, 2023 passed under Section 107 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). By virtue of this order, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of limitation, as the same was filed approximately 73 days beyond the date of limitation.
3. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner has fairly submitted that the appeal under Section 107 of the Act was filed beyond time. However, counsel on behalf of the petitioner relies on a Division Bench judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of S.K. Chakraborty & sons vs. Union of India and others reported in 2024-T.L.D.-22-CAL to argue that Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Limitation Act’) would be attracted as Section 107 of the Act does not expressly or impliedly exclude the attraction of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
4. This Court in M/s Abhishek Trading Corporation vs. Commissioner (Appeals) and another [(Writ Tax No.1394 of 2023, decided on 19.1.2024) Neutral Citation No. 2024: AHC: 9563], after relying on the Supreme Court judgments in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and others reported in (2008) 3 SCC 70 and Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India Private Limited and another reported in (2009) 5 SCC 791 has categorically held as follows:-
“7. The Central Goods and Services Act is a special statute and a self-contained code by itself. Section 107 of the Act has an inbuilt mechanism and has impliedly excluded the application of the Limitation Act. It is trite law that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will apply only if it is extended to the special statute. Section 107 of the Act specifically provides for the limitation and in the absence of any clause condoning the delay by showing sufficient cause after the prescribed period, there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Accordingly, one cannot apply Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the aforesaid provision.”
5. In Penuel Nexus Pvt. Ltd. -v- The Additional Commissioner Headquarters (Appeals) and Ors., reported in MANU/KE/3276/2023, the Kerala High Court held that the GST Act is a special statue and a self contained code by itself and hence, Limitation Act will not apply. Relevant paragraph has been extracted below:
“10. The Central Goods and Services Tax Act is a special statute and a self-contained code by itself. Section 107 has an inbuilt mechanism and has impliedly excluded the application of the Limitation Act. It is trite, that the Limitation Act will apply only if it is extended to the special statute. It is also rudimentary that the provisions of a fiscal statute have to be strictly construed and interpreted.”
6. The aforementioned principle was reiterated by this Court in Garg Enterprises -v- State of U.P. and Ors, reported in MANU/UP/0197/2024. Relevant paragraph has been reproduced below:
“7. The Central Goods and Services Act is a special statute and a self-contained code by itself. Section 107 of the Act has an inbuilt mechanism and has impliedly excluded the application of the Limitation Act. It is trite law that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will apply only if it is extended to the special statute. Section 107 of the Act specifically provides for the limitation and in the absence of any clause condoning the delay by showing sufficient cause after the prescribed period, there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Accordingly, one cannot apply Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the aforesaid provision.”
7. Upon a perusal of Section 107 of the Act, it is clear that the appellate authority can only allow extension of a period of one month as provided in sub section (4) of Section 107 of the Act. In the present case, the appeal was filed approximately 73 days subsequent to the expiry of one month that was condonable under Section 107(4) of the Act. To make it more clear, the period within which the appeal could have been filed was three months plus a period of one month. However, in the present case the appeal was filed beyond the period of four months, and therefore, the appellate authority could not have condoned the delay even if sufficient cause was made out.
8. The significance of limitations in taxing statues, such as the GST Act, cannot be overstated. These statutes govern the collection of taxes, which are vital for the functioning of a state or country. Limitation provisions ensure timely resolution of disputes and promote efficiency and fairness in tax administration. Tax laws are complex and often subject to interpretation, leading to disputes between taxpayers and tax authorities. Limitation provides a framework within which such disputes must be resolved, thereby preventing undue delays and ensuring that tax liabilities are determined within a reasonable time frame. This is crucial for both taxpayers and tax authorities as it promotes legal certainty and facilitates effective tax compliance.
9. Section 107 of the GST Act prescribes a specific limitation period within which appeals against certain decisions must be filed. This limitation period is integral to the functioning of the appellate mechanism under the GST Act and reflects the legislative intent to expedite the resolution of tax disputes. By imposing a time limit on the filling of appeals, Section 107 aims to prevent undue delayed in the adjudication process and promote the efficient administration of the GST regime. On the other hand, Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides for the extension of prescribed periods in certain exceptional circumstances, such as when sufficient cause is shown for the delay.
10. In analyzing the conflicting interpretations concerning the exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act as far as Section 107 of the GST Act is concerned, it is essential to consider the rationale behind the exclusion of the Limitation Act in certain special statues, particularly in the context of taxation. Tax laws are often characterized by strict procedural requirements and time-bound deadlines, reflecting the need for expeditious resolution of tax disputes to ensure revenue certainty and fiscal stability.
11. The judgment rendered by the Calcutta High Court in the matter of S.K. Chakraborty & Sons (supra) fails to adequately consider the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Singh Enterprises (supra) and Hongo India (supra) and hence the said judgment is of no precedented value, and accordingly, the view expressed therein is not accepted by this Court.
12. Taxing statutes like the GST Act embody a comprehensive framework with specific limitation provisions tailored to expedite the resolution of tax-related matters. Section 107 of the GST Act, operates as a complete code in itself, explicitly delineating limitation periods for filing appeals and implicitly excluding the application of general limitation provisions such as Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
13. Accordingly, the present writ petition is without any merit and is dismissed.
Author Bio
