M/S. Esh Ispat Private Limited, Through Its Authorized Signatory-Cum-Director, Punit Kumar vs. The Principal Commissioner, Central Goods And Service Tax And Central Excise

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. It referred to Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which prescribes the procedure for filing appeals and allows for condonation of delay only up to a further period of one month by the Appellate Authority if satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause. The Court relied on Supreme Court judgments in "Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur" and "Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise Vs. M/s Hongo India (P) Ltd. & Anr." which established that statutory appellate authorities are creatures of statute and do not possess the jurisdiction to condone delays beyond the period statutorily provided. The Court emphasized that the CGST Act is a self-contained code, and Section 107 has an inbuilt mechanism that implicitly excludes the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Therefore, the High Court cannot condone the delay by exercising its writ jurisdiction when the statute itself provides a strict limitation period and a limited power for condonation. The writ petition was dismissed as the delay could not be condoned by the Court.

Facts

M/s. ESH Ispat Private Limited and its director, Punit Kumar (petitioners), filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court. They sought a direction to the Commissioner (Appeal) to accept their appeal against an order dated January 13, 2025, passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST & CX Hqrs, Ranchi. The appeal was intended to be filed under Section 107(1) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, but was delayed by approximately 2 months and 10 days beyond the statutory limit. Alternatively, they sought to quash the order dated January 13, 2025, alleging it was passed without proper application of mind and without considering their reply. They also sought a stay on coercive recovery steps.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court can direct the Commissioner (Appeal) to accept an appeal filed beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 107(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, by condoning the delay, considering the extraordinary circumstances preventing the petitioners? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that they were prevented by extraordinary circumstances from filing the appeal within the statutory limit and sought condonation of the delay of about 2 months and 10 days. They also contended that the order dated January 13, 2025, was passed without proper application of mind and without considering their reply. Respondent's contention: The respondents (CGST authorities) did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment regarding the condonation of delay or the merits of the order. However, the judgment's reasoning implies that the statutory provisions strictly limit the appellate authority's power to condone delay.