Shri Ram Ply Product Thru. Its Partner Shri Arun Kumar Jindal vs. Addl. Commissioner Grade 2 Appeal State Tax Sitapur And 2 Others
Facts
The petitioner, Shri Ram Ply Product, through its Partner Shri Arun Kumar Jindal, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. The petition sought to quash an order dated 27.02.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal), Sitapur, in Appeal No.110 of 2022. The core of the dispute was that the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the appellate authority was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The respondents were the Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal) State Tax Sitapur and two others.
Held
The Court held that fiscal statutes must be construed strictly, and equitable jurisdiction cannot be exercised in matters pertaining to fiscal statutes. The petitioner had admittedly filed the appeal beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Therefore, the Court found no reason to interfere with the appellate authority's approach, which was in accordance with the law and rules. The High Court cannot extend the statutory period of limitation. The ratio decidendi is that statutory limitations in fiscal laws are sacrosanct and cannot be circumvented by invoking equitable jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court, in its equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can extend the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal under a fiscal statute, specifically Section 107 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, when the appeal was admittedly filed beyond the statutory period? Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that the High Court should exercise its equitable jurisdiction to grant relief, implying a request to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Respondent (State Authorities): Contended that fiscal statutes are to be construed strictly, and the High Court cannot exercise equitable jurisdiction to extend the period of limitation prescribed by the statute. They relied on the principle of strict interpretation of fiscal laws.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 98 of 2023 Petitioner :- Shri Ram Ply Product Thru. Its Partner Shri Arun Kumar Jindal Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner Grade 2 Appeal State Tax Sitapur And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Mr. Suyash Agarwal along with Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates for the petitioner, as well as Mr. Sanjay Shareen, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, for respondents- State Authorities.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed, seeking quashing of the order dated 27.02.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal) Sitapur in Appeal No.110 of 2022 (Annexure-7).
Admittedly, the appeal was preferred beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 4. The provisions of fiscal statutes are to be construed strictly. This Court cannot exercise equitable juri iction in matter of fiscal statute. Therefore, this Court does not find that the appellate authority's approach was against the law or the rules made thereunder. As the petitioner preferred the appeal beyo
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.