G.N. Sivakumar vs. The Deputy Commissioner (CT)(Appeals)

Held

The Court held that the time during which the petitioner was pursuing the rectification remedy under Section 161 of the respective GST enactments deserves to be excluded for the purpose of computing the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments. The Court reasoned that this principle has been clarified by its own previous orders, including the case of M/s.Chiranjilal Spinners Pvt. Ltd and Tvl.B.V.Enterprises, which applied Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Consequently, the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the first respondent on grounds of limitation was found to be liable for interference. The impugned order was quashed, and the case was remitted back to the first respondent to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law, after giving due notice to the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner, G.N. Sivakumar, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 06.05.2026 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (CT)(Appeals), the first respondent. This order dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an earlier order dated 11.11.2025 on the grounds of limitation. Following the order of 11.11.2025, the petitioner had sought rectification under Section 161 of the GST enactments on 24.03.2026. This rectification application was dismissed on 02.04.2026. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated 11.11.2025 on 02.05.2026, which was then rejected by the first respondent as being time-barred.

Key Issues

1. Whether the period during which the petitioner pursued a remedy under Section 161 of the GST enactments should be excluded for the purpose of computing the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the time spent in pursuing the rectification application under Section 161 should be excluded from the limitation period for filing the appeal. They relied on the principle that time spent in prosecuting a wrong remedy, in good faith, should be condoned, citing Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and previous judgments of the High Court in M/s.Chiranjilal Spinners Pvt. Ltd vs. the Deputy Commissioner (State Appeals) and Tvl.B.V.Enterprises vs.The Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC). Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or the respondents.