The court ruled that personal hearing rights depend on a formal request by the assessee, and decisions on limitation for appeals under special statutes cannot be easily extended without valid justification.

JUDGMENT

Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.

Heard Sri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.S.Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. This writ petition has been filed assailing the notice dated 17.02.2022 issued by respondent No.2 and the order passed on 22.03.2022 as well as the order passed on 11.08.2023 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner as being time barred.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a proprietorship firm registered under both the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act (hereinafter called as "UPGST Act") and Central Goods and Service Tax Act (hereinafter called as "CGST Act"). The dispute is for the period June, 2019, Financial Year 2019-20. The petitioner is in the business of trading of MS Angle and steel items. Notice under Section 74(1) of the Act was issued on 17.02.2022 to which no reply was given by petitioner-firm. The Taxing Authority, on 22.03.2022, passed an order under Section 74(9) of the Act imposing penalty along with interest. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, an appeal was filed before the appellate forum which was dismissed on 11.08.2023 on the ground of delay, hence this writ petition.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no opportunity of personal hearing, as mandated under Section 75(4) of the Act, was given to the assessee before final order was passed. Reliance has been placed upon decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of M/s Mohan Agencies v. State of U.P. & Anr., Writ Tax No.58 of 2023 decided on 13.02.2023. Reliance has also been placed upon decision of coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Viswkarma Furniture v. Additional Commissioner Grade 2 & Anr., Writ Tax No.393 of 2023 decided on 12.04.2023. Reliance has also been placed upon decision in case of Bharat Mint & Allied Chemicals v. Commissioner Commercial Tax & 2 Ors. (2022) 48 VLJ 325.

5. It was next contended that the Appellate Authority was not justified in rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay as in the 52nd Meeting of the GST Council held on 7th October, 2023, the Government had extended the period of filing of appeal under Section 107 of CGST Act, 2017 till 31st January, 2023 in case where order under Section 74 has been passed on or before 31st March, 2023.

6. Learned Standing Counsel while opposing the writ petition submitted that CGST Act is a special statute and Section 107 provides an inbuilt mechanism and it impliedly excludes the application of Limitation Act. According to him, once the appeal has been filed beyond the statutory period of limitation, the delay cannot be condoned. Moreover, the grounds of appeal does not disclose any valid ground for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Reliance has been placed upon decision of Kerala High Court in case of Penuel Nexus Pvt. Ltd. v. The Additional Commissioner Headquarters (Appeals), Ernakulam 2023 Supreme (Kerla) 353. Relevant para 10 of the judgment is extracted hereas under :

"The Central Goods and Services Tax Act is a special statute and a selfcontained code by itself. Section 107 has an inbuilt mechanism and has impliedly excluded the application of the Limitation Act. It is trite, that the Limitation Act will apply only if it is extended to the special statute. It is also rudimentary that the provisions of a fiscal statute have to be strictly construed and interpreted."

7. Reliance has also been placed upon a decision of