Case Law Details
Vasudeva Engineering Vs Union of India and others (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Vasudeva Engineering Vs Union of India and others, addressed the issue of delays in filing GST appeals beyond the statutory limitation period outlined in Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The court emphasized that while the Act imposes a strict timeline of three months, with an additional condonable period of 30 days, the Appellate Authority is bound by these provisions and lacks discretion to allow further delays. However, invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court held that it retains the power to condone such delays in appropriate cases to prevent businesses from being rendered remediless.
The court underscored that the primary objective of the GST legislation is to provide relief to businesses. Denying appeals due to procedural delays, especially when pre-deposits have been made, undermines this purpose. By condoning the delay, the court directed the Appellate Authority to hear and decide the cases on their merits without further debate on limitation or pre-deposit compliance. This decision aligns with past judgments where procedural barriers were set aside to ensure substantive justice for aggrieved taxpayers. The judgment reinforces the balance between adherence to statutory timelines and the broader constitutional mandate of ensuring access to justice.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
1. This order shall dispose of 17 writ petitions, i.e., CWP-27468-2023, CWP-18475-2023, CWP-26077-2023, CWP-18591-2023, CWP-5397-2023, CWP-7816-2024, CWP-8517-2024, CWP-12742-2024, CWP-13358-2024, CWP-22946-2024, CWP-15632-2024, CWP-7684-2024, CWP-10089-2024, CWP-10105-2024, CWP-16348-2024, CWP-16353-2024 and CWP-24025-2024 as a common issue is involved.
2. The short question involved in all these petitions is that whether the Appellate Authority hearing appeals in terms of Section 107 of the Act was legally correct in rejecting the appeals which had been filed after the requisite time period laid down in Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act’). We find that while the petitioners had paid the pre-deposit for hearing on the appeal, it is an admitted position that the appeals had been filed beyond the limitation period that even beyond the period which could be condoned under the provisions of Section 107 and 35(1) of the Act while the said provision provides for a period of three months for filing of an appeal with additional period of 30 days for condonation, the provisions under Section 107 are not condemnable to Limitation Act and therefore, the delay cannot be further condoned. The condonation being provided under the Act itself. In view thereto, the action of the Appellate Authority in rejecting the appeals cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified. However, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Tecnimont Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and others 2019 INSC 1054, the similar issue relating to non-deposit of in cases where the pre-deposit had not been made, and the appeals were rejected before the Supreme Court where the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the order was not unjustified in rejecting the appeals but left it open for the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 considering the facts of each case to condone the requirement of pre-deposit in the case of M/s Steel Kart Vs. State of Haryana and others, passed in CWP-17348-2024 before this Court, examined an issue where the order challenged in appeal, since it was not in the knowledge of the petitioner within the time prescribed and this Court exercised its powers under Article 226 and directed the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal of the petitioner(s) on merits without going into the question of delay/limitation. Thus, it is apparent as to why the concerned Appellate Authority would be bound by the provisions of the Act, the same would not curtail the powers in any manner provided under Article 226 of this Court to exercise its jurisdiction in the facts of the case and condoned the delay.
3. The provisions of the said Act, 2017 are for the purpose of providing relief to the businessman in an appropriate matter where the demand may have been raised wrongfully or illegally by preferring an appeal. If on account of delay which may occur due to several reasons, relating to business affairs, the businessman is precluded from filing of an appeal, he/she would become remedy less. The cancellation of registration of GST has cascading effect on all the other businessman too who are receiving the goods from the concerned businessmen whose GST registration has been cancelled. Therefore, in these circumstances, it is essential that a finality should be arrived at between the decision taken for cancellation of the registration and also at the same time remedy should be available which is efficacious to the concerned aggrieved person.
4. Accordingly, we hold that the powers to hear the appeal in terms of Section 107 of the Act would not be subject to filing of an appeal within the time prescribed wherein, it would not in any manner deprive a person from claiming the right of hearing of an appeal by filing of a writ petition before this Court for condonation of delay.
5. Now considering the aforesaid issue which is purely legal, we find that no reply from the respondents is required to be filed and we condoned the delay also as the petitioner(s) have already submitted the pre-deposit amount for hearing of the appeal.
6. The appeals shall be heard and decided on merits by the Appellate Authority, preferably, within a period of three months from today.
7. With the aforesaid observations, the present petitions are allowed.
8. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Author Bio
