M/S Shree Shakti Minerals vs. The Commissioner

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is maintainable and allowed it. The order dated June 11, 2024, passed by the Joint Commissioner of CGST was quashed. The Court reasoned that while statutory provisions of limitation under Section 107 of the CGST Act bind statutory authorities and limit their power to condone delay, these limitations do not apply in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that powers under Article 226 are founded on justice, equity, and good conscience and are exercised for public good. The Court distinguished the cited case of "Ashok Varandan" as pertaining to different issues. The Court found that the legislative intent of the CGST Act, particularly Section 30, is to facilitate business, and the right to appeal should not be frustrated by technicalities. Consequently, the statutory appeal was restored to its original file, subject to the petitioner depositing late fees, penalties, and other statutory deposits required for entertaining the appeal. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

M/s Shree Shakti Minerals (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging an order dated June 11, 2024, passed by the Joint Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST), Jodhpur. The Joint Commissioner dismissed the petitioner's statutory appeal (Order-in-Appeal No. 425 (RSG) CGST/JDR/2024) as being barred by limitation. The Joint Commissioner relied on Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, and Circular No. 148/04/2021-GST, holding that appeals filed beyond three months, with a possible one-month extension for condonation, cannot be entertained. The Joint Commissioner also cited a Kerala High Court decision, "Plenuel Nexus Private Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner Headquarter," which held that appellate authorities under special statutes like the CGST Act lack the power to condone delays beyond the statutorily prescribed period, implicitly excluding the Limitation Act, 1963.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, has the power to condone delay in filing an appeal beyond the period prescribed in the statute, including the extended period of one month. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the legislative intent behind the CGST Act is to facilitate commercial activities, and the right to appeal should be decided on merits, irrespective of minor delays, especially in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, which are founded on justice, equity, and good conscience. They contended that statutory provisions of limitation should not frustrate this intent through mere technicalities. Revenue's contention: The Revenue, through its counsel, relied on a decision of the same High Court in "Ashok Varandan Vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs & Ors." and the Supreme Court's decision in "Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors. Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited." These decisions, according to the Revenue, suggest that if a statutory appeal is not filed within the extended period of limitation, a writ petition should not be entertained.