The principles of Section 14 of the Limitation Act allow for exclusion of time spent on bona fide applications, thereby justifying the filing of the appeal within the limitation period despite prior delays.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ankur Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue and perused the record.

2. The present writ petition has been filed to assail the order dated 05.03.2025 passed by Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal)-V, State Tax, Kanpur (respondent No.4) whereby the first appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 107 of the UP GST Act, 2017 (herein after referred to as the Act), against the ex-parte adjudication order dated 23.04.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-27, Lakhanpur Kanpur-respondent No.3, under Section 73 of the Act for the Financial Year 2018-19, (creating demand of Tax/Cess Rs.7,81,838.98/- together with interest Rs.7,86,164/- and penalty Rs.78,184/-) has been dismissed as time barred. The remaining prayers (in the petition) have not been pressed.

3. Arising from the ex-parte adjudication order dated 23.04.2024, the petitioner first filed an application referable to Section 161 of the Act (seeking rectification in the order dated 23.04.2024), on 23.5.2024 i.e. after a month and one day. The said application was rejected by the order dated 22.10.2024, as not maintainable.

4. At that stage, the petitioner filed an appeal under section 107 of the Act on 29.11.2024 i.e. within a month and eight days from the date of the order passed under Section 161 of the Act.

5. According to the petitioner, there was no delay in filing that appeal as it was entitled to the benefit of the principle underlying Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "Limitation Act"). However, the appellate authority has rejected the appeal and dismissed those proceedings as time-barred, vide order dated 05.03.2025.

6. Primarily, this order is under challenge in the present writ petition. At present, the Tribunal has not been made functional. For that reason, the present writ petition has been entertained, upon lifting the self imposed bar of alternative remedy.

7. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is-though, in terms, Section 14 of the Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings under the Act, at the same time, the underlying principle contained in of the Limitation Act does apply. Reliance has been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in M.P. Steel Corporation vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2015 (319) E.L.T. 373 (S.C.) Further reliance has been placed on a decision of the Madras High Court in M/s. SPK and Co. vs. The State Tax Officer in W.P.(MD) Nos. 27787 and 27788 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos. 23585 and 23586 of 2024 decided on 22.11.2024 and another decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in M/s Arvind Fashion Limited vs. State of Haryana and others 2025:PHHC:135347-DB. Also, reliance has been placed upon observation made in paragraph No.14(D) of the order passed by a co- ordinate bench in Atlantis Intelligence Ltd. vs. Union of India and 2 others, 2025:AHC: 135383 -DB

8. Thus, it has been submitted, the learned Appeal Authority has erred in law in declining to give benefit of the principle contained in Section 14 of the Limitation Act. If the duration of pendency of the rectification of mistake application filed by the petitioner under Section 161 of the Act is excluded, the appeal filed by the petitioner would be within three months from the date of communication of the order dated23.4.2024. Thus, the appeal filed is within limitation.

9. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel would contend that the period of limitation is prescribed under the Act, to file appeals etc. In the first place, the limitation of three months existed to file