Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
Murli Packers - Petitioner
Versus
State of U P and 2 others - Respondents
WRIT TAX NO. - 407 OF 2020.
Decided On : 24-01-2024
JUDGMENT
Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
Heard Sri Subham Agarwal, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Amit Mahajan, counsel appearing on behalf of department.
2. This is an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed in appeal filed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), dated October 15, 2019, wherein the authority has dismissed the appeal on the ground that the same is barred by limitation.
3. The factual aspects infact indicates that the appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner, Grade-II (Appeals) Saharanpur on June 14, 2019 challenging the registration cancellation order dated April 4, 2019. However, it appears that the appeal filed had been in the wrong jurisdiction, and accordingly, petitioner withdrew the same and filed a fresh appeal before correct jurisdiction i.e. the respondent no.3/Additional Commissioner, CGST, (Appeals), Meerut, on August 29, 2019.
4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that if the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act is given to the petitioner, then the said appeal would not be time barred under Section 107 of the Act.
5. I find merit in the submission of counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and accordingly, I quash and set aside the impugned order dated October 15, 2019 and direct the respondent no.3/Additional Commissioner, CGST, (Appeals), Meerut, to grant benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to the petitioner and hear the appeal afresh. If after granting the benefit of Section 14 the petitioner's appeal is filed within time, the appeal shall be heard on merits.
6. In light of the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of.
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, allowing the appeal to be heard on its merits if filed within the extended time.
The application of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in specia....
Proper service and satisfaction of communication to the assessee are essential for triggering the limitation period under Section 107 of the CGST Act, and the revenue's approach in considering the co....
The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 excludes the application of the Limitation Act, 1963, preventing the condonation of delays beyond the statutory period for filing appeals.
The court affirmed that while the CGST Act imposes strict limitations on appeals, such limitations do not apply in writ proceedings, allowing for the restoration of the appeal based on merits.
The Supreme Court's order concluded the matter, but the petitioner was allowed to pursue an appeal, with Section 14 of the Limitation Act applicable for calculating the limitation period.
Section 107 has an inbuilt mechanism and has impliedly excluded application of Limitation Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
