Court Cannot Extend Statutory Appeal Time Limit Beyond Section 107 of CGST Act Using Article 226 Powers
In recent case of M/S. AGRAWAL ENTERPRISES Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS , Gujrat high court held that, once the statutory time limit of appeal as per sec 107 for 90 days and 30 extended days, is exhausted court cannot exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to dilute the intention of the legislature and further extend the time limit.
Background of the case
the petitioner is a partnership firm, a demand order against the petitioner under Section 74(5) of the CGST Act 2017 / SGST Act 2017, calling upon the petitioner to pay tax of along with interest and However as the taxpayer was not aware abut the order passed, he could not file the appeal with the time limit but filed delayed by 284 days along with application for condonation of delay.
Notice for personal hearing was issued to petitioner by appellate authority, but the petitioner was never informed about such hearing by mail or post so the petitioner could not remain present for hearing, resulting in rejection of appeal.
Court Observation
Section 107 (4) of the Act grants discretion to the Appellate Authority, to allow additional one month in case he/she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by “sufficient cause” from presenting the appeal after 90 days, but within a period of 30 days. Thus, the discretion of the Appellate authority ends on the completion of additional 30 days.
when an additional period of 30 days is supplied by the statute over and above the basic period of 90 days, and the same stands exhausted, Court cannot exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to dilute the intention of the legislature and further extend the limitation by condoning the delay by re-examining the “sufficient cause”.
The reason assigned by the appellant is also not palatable, as it is hard to believe, that in todays, era, the appellant and his accountant are not having the knowledge of operating the computers, and hence they did not verify the order DRC-07. even if the appellant had a valid reason and sufficient cause explaining the delay, this Court cannot condone the delay beyond 120 days. The tax payers are supposed to remain vigilant of all the proceedings and have to timely verify the orders on the portal. The taxing statutes operate in very strict time frame, and any relaxation or easing of limitation period will have cascading effect on the functioning of the revenue.
Conclusion :
Court dismissed the petition.
Author Bio
