The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s. Yadav Steels v. Additional Commissioner and Anr. [Writ Tax No. 975 of 2023 dated February 15, 2024] dismissed the writ petition, thereby holding that, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (“the Limitation Act”) would not be applicable for appeal filed under Section 107 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the UPGST Act”).
Facts:
M/s. Yadav Steels (“the Petitioner”) has filed a writ petition against the order dated January 23, 2023, (“the Impugned Order”) passed under Section 107 of the UPGST Act wherein the appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed on the ground of limitation as the said appeal was filed approximately 66 days beyond the date of limitation.
Issue:
Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act would be applicable for appeal filed under Section 107 of the UPGST Act?
Held:
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Writ Tax No. 975 of 2023 held as under:
- Observed that, Section 107(4) of the UPGST Act, allows extension for a period of one month. Also, Section 107 aims to prevent undue delay in the adjudication process and promote effective administration of the GST regime.
- Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s. Abhishek Trading Corporation v. Commissioner (Appeals) and Anr. [Writ Tax No. 1394 of 2023 dated January 19, 2024] and noted that, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”) is a special statute and a self-contained code in itself and Section 5 of the Limitation Act would not be applicable.
- Opined that, the judgement Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of S. K. Chakraborty and Sons. v. Union of India and Others. [MAT 81 of 2022 dated December 01, 2023] wherein it was held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, would be applicable as Section 107 of the CGST Act does not expressly or impliedly exclude the attraction of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, would not be applicable in the present case.
- Held that, the writ petition is devoid of merits. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.
Relevant Provision:
Section 5 of the Limitation Act:
“5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.—
Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.
Explanation.—The fact that the appellant or the applicant was missed by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section.”
Conclusion: This case sheds light on the nuanced interpretation of legal provisions surrounding the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to appeals under the UPGST Act. The Allahabad High Court’s ruling underscores the importance of understanding the specific provisions of GST laws and their interaction with general statutes. Businesses and legal practitioners must stay informed to navigate the evolving landscape of GST-related litigations.
******
(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)
Author Bio
