JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J. (Oral)

1. The instant writ petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive relief:-

“for directing the respondent no. 2. the Commissioner (Appeal) to accept the appeal which the petitioners now intend to file under section 107(1) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, against the order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST & CX Hqrs, Ranchi, as the same stands beyond the statutory limit as prescribed under section 107(1) of CGST Act, considering the extra-ordinary circumstances of the petitioners preventing him to file the appeal, by condoning the delay of about 2 months 10 days.

OR/In Alternative For quashing of the order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the respondent no. 3 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition), as the same has been passed without proper application of mind and without considering the entirety of the reply (undated) filed on behalf of the petitioners and duly received by the respondent office on 11.10.2023.

AND During the pendency of the present writ application, the respondents may be constrain from taking any coercive steps as against the petitioners for recovery of the alleged amount as determined vide order dated 13.01.2025.”

2. Clearly the relief as claimed for is totally misconceived for the reason that Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short ‘the Act’) stipulates the procedure for filing of appeal before the appellate authority which reads as under:

“107. Appeals to Appellate Authority:

(1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act or the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act 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) …………………….. (3) ……………………..

(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”

…………………………………………..”

3. A plain reading of Section 107 of the Act makes it absolutely clear that the appellate authority has no power to allow an appeal to be presented beyond the period of one month from the date of filing of such appeal.

4. How this provision is to be construed would be determined on the basis of somewhat similar provision contained in the Central Excise Act which came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, (2008) 3 SCC 70. The Hon’ble Supreme Court therein was considering a case wherein the Commissioner had dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was time barred and filed beyond the period of 30 days from the expiry of the period of 60 days, as prescribed for filing of a statutory appeal. The High Court dismissed the writ petition and the matter reached before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it was argued that the Commissioner has no power to condone the delay. However, the High Court could condone the delay by exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since such power is untrammelled by the statutory provision. Negating the above contention, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 8 observed as under:-

“8. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) as also the Tribunal being creatures of statute are not vested with jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the permissible period provided under the statute. The period up to which the prayer for condonation can be accepted is statutorily provided. It was submitted that the logic of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short “the Limitation Act”) can be availed for condonation of delay. The first proviso to Section 35 makes the position clear that the appeal has to be preferred within three months from the d