The appellate authority under the Jammu & Kashmir GST Act cannot condone delays beyond thirty days for filing appeals, and the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction does not permit overriding this statutory limit without exceptional circumstances.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Kumar, J.

1. The issues in these petitions i.e.:

(i) Whether the Appellate Authority under Subsection (4) of Section 107 of the Act of 2017 is competent to condone the delay in filing an appeal against a decision or order passed under the Act by an adjudicating authority beyond a period of one months after the expiry of three months’ period prescribed for filing appeal under Subsection (1) of Section 107 of the Act of 2017? and

(ii) even if the appellate authority does not have power to condone the delay beyond the period of thirty days as prescribed under Subsection (4) of Section 107 of the Act of 2017, this Court, in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can direct such condonation of delay, if it is satisfied that a case of exceptional nature is made out for such condonation of delay or that the interest of justice would warrant condoning the delay.

have already been set at rest in judgment dated 13.08.2024 passed in WP(C) No.1413/2024 and clubbed matters and, therefore, are no longer res integra and what has been held in the said judgment would apply to all fours of the instant petitions. With regard to these questions, this Court has held thus:

“The appellate authority cannot entertain an appeal under Section 107 of the Act of 2017 against a decision or order of the adjudicating authority, if it is filed beyond the period of four months from the date such decision or order is communicated to the person aggrieved.

Sub-section (1) of Section 107 prescribes period of limitation for presenting such appeal(s) as three months. However, Subsection (4) of Section 107 gives discretion to the appellate authority to condone the delay beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Subsection (1) provided it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the period of three months. However, such discretion is confined to condoning the delay to the maximum period of thirty days and not beyond that. By making such provision in Subsection (4), the legislature has foreclosed the further discretion of the appellate authority to condone the delay beyond the period of thirty days even by the aid of Section 29 of the Limitation Act. The scheme of the Act of 2017, in particular, provisions of Section 107(4) expressly exclude the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

The periods of limitation are procedural in nature. Therefore, the prohibition contained in Section 107(4) of the Act of 2017 to condone delay beyond one month cannot come in the way of Constitutional Court exercising extraordinary jurisdiction to render substantial justice. Therefore, while a statutory prohibition is a strong consideration to be kept in mind, yet it does not bar the jurisdiction of the High Court to condone the delay if it is of the opinion that application of delay barring statute would result in gross injustice. Each case is, thus, required to be evaluated on its specific facts and circumstances.

2. The petitioners in all these petitions are dealers registered under Jammu & Kashmir Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [“the Act of 2017”] under different registration numbers. They were assessed by the respective adjudicating authority under Section 73/74 of the Act of 2017 and certain demands were raised against them. Feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved by the orders passed by the adjudicating authorities, the petitioners preferred statutory appeals before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Act of 2017. The appeals preferred by the petitioners-assessees were not entertained and rejected indicating the reason for rejection as “delay in submission of appeals”

3. Since the Government is yet to constitute Appellate Tribunal, as such, the petitioners, feeling aggrieved by rejection of their appeals, are before us invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

WP