ORDER :

1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order Annexure P/1 dated 09.01.2020 passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) in Appeal Case No. 306/GST/2019. Vide the said impugned order the appeal that the petitioner had preferred under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017 has been dismissed on the ground of barred by limitation.

2. The facts of the case is that the respondents herein vide his order dated 15.10.2018 has imposed a penalty invoking the provisions of Section 129(1)(b) of the GST Act, 2017. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 107 of the aforesaid Act of 2017 on 21.05.2019. It is this appeal which has been rejected on the ground of limitation.

3. For dealing with the issue it would be relevant at this juncture to first quote the relevant provisions of the appeal and the period of limitation prescribed therein. For ready reference Sub-section (1) and (4) reads as under:-

“129. Detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyances in transit. -

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where any person transports any goods or stores any goods while they are in transit in contravention of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, all such goods and conveyance used as a means of transport for carrying the said goods and documents relating to such goods and conveyance shall be liable to detention or seizure and after detention or seizure, shall be released,-

(a) on payment of the applicable tax and penalty equal to one hundred per cent. of the tax payable on such goods and, in case of exempted goods, on payment of an amount equal to two per cent. of the value of goods or twenty-five thousand rupees, whichever is less, where the owner of the goods comes forward for payment of such tax and penalty;

(b) on payment of the applicable tax and penalty equal to the fifty per cent. of the value of the goods reduced by the tax amount paid thereon and, in case of exempted goods, on payment of an amount equal to five per cent. of the value of goods or twenty five thousand rupees, whichever is less, where the owner of the goods does not come forward for payment of such tax and penalty;

(c) upon furnishing a security equivalent to the amount payable under clause (a) or clause (b) in such form and manner as may be prescribed:

Provided that no such goods or conveyance shall be detained or seized without serving an order of detention or seizure on the person transporting the goods.

(2) xxxxxx

(3) xxxxxx

(4) No tax, interest or penalty shall be determined under sub-section (3) without giving the person concerned an opportunity of being heard.”

4. From the plain reading of the aforesaid two provisions, it clearly reflects that the Appellate Authority has been given the power to condone the delay of only one month i.e. 30 days and not beyond that. Thus, from the plain reading of the provisions it clearly establishes the fact that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act would not be governing the field in view of the specific period of limitation and the period for condonation of delay being provided. The original order was dated 15.10.2018. The appeal had to be filed within three months i.e. by 15.01.2019. If for some reason the appeal would not be filed under any circumstances, it ought to have been filed within a further period of 30 days. Having not done so within the said stipulated 30 days period, any subsequent filing of the appeal beyond the extended 30 days period the Appellate Authority would not have the power to condone the delay. The Appellate Authority in the given circumstances does not have any further powers to entertain an appeal beyond the period of 30 days after the expiry of the original period of limitation, which in other word means that the Appellate Authority becomes functus officio once when the period of 4 months are over.

5. The fact that there is an upper limit of only one month provided in the statutes itself for preferring an appeal bey