IMPORTANT POINT
The appellate authority under the APGST Act cannot condone delays beyond the one-month limit specified in Section 107(4), excluding broader provisions of the Limitation Act.

ORDER :

1. Heard Smt. Jyothi Ratna Anumolu, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri T.C.D. Sekhar, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes.

2. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners, being aggrieved by the orders of the assessing authorities, had filed appeals, before the appellate authorities, under section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act. However, these appeals have been filed beyond the period of limitation set out under the Act and the period of delay for which the appellate authority is empowered, under section 107 (4), to condone. These appeals were dismissed on the ground that they had been filed beyond limitation and cannot be considered. Aggrieved by these orders of dismissal, the petitioners have approached this court by way of these writ petitions.

3. The orders impugned in the present batch of writ petitions are as follows:

4. Section 107 of the APGST Act reads as follows:

107.....

(1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act or the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by an adjudicating authority may appeal to such Appellate Authority as may be prescribed within three months from the date on which the said decision or order is communicated to such person.

(2) The Chief Commissioner may, on his own motion, or upon request from the Commissioner of Central tax, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which an adjudicating authority has passed any decision or order under this Act or the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the said decision or order and may, by order, direct any officer subordinate to him to apply to the Appellate Authority within six months from the date of communication of the said decision or order for the determination of such points arising out of the said decision or order as may be specified by the Chief Commissioner in his order.

(3) Where, in pursuance of an order under sub-section (2), the authorized officer makes an application to the Appellate Authority, such application shall be dealt with by the Appellate Authority as if it were an appeal made against the decision or order of the adjudicating authority and such authorized officer were an appellant and the provisions of this Act relating to appeals shall apply to such application.

(4) The Appellate Authority may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of three months or six months, as the case may be, allow it to be presented within a further period of one month.

5. Smt. Jyothi Ratna Anumolu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that even though Section 107 (4) empowers the appellate authority to permit condonation of delay for a period of one month beyond the statutory period of three months or six months provided under Section 107(1) and (2), the provisions of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 would permit the appellate authority to condone the delay beyond the period provided under Section 107 (2) or (3).

6. The learned counsel also relies upon the judgments in Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. (2001) 8 SCC 470, Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. vs. Madan Lal Das & Sons, Bareilly, (1976) 4 SCC 464, Superintending Engineer/Dehar Power House Circle Bhakra Bea Management Board (PW) Slapper and Another vs. Excise and Taxation Officer, Sunder Nagar/Assessing Authority, (2020) 17 SCC 692, Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and Others, (2008) 3 SCC 70, Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise vs. Hongo India Private Limite