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 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition sought to quash an order dated 27.02.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal) Sitapur in Appeal No.111 of 2022. The core of the dispute revolves around the fact that the appeal was admittedly preferred beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The respondents are the Additional Commissioner Grade 2 Appeal State Tax Sitapur and two others.

Held

The Court held that the provisions of fiscal statutes are to be construed strictly and that the High Court cannot exercise equitable jurisdiction in matters of fiscal statutes. Consequently, the Court found that the appellate authority's approach was not against the law or the rules made thereunder. Since the petitioner preferred the appeal beyond the time prescribed under the statute, the Court stated it could not come to the petitioner's aid to extend the period of limitation. The ratio decidendi is that statutory limitations in fiscal laws are mandatory and cannot be circumvented by equitable considerations in writ jurisdiction. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition.

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 Section 107 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, when the appeal was filed beyond the statutory period. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner implicitly sought relief from the High Court, likely arguing for leniency or an extension of time due to circumstances not explicitly detailed in the judgment. However, the judgment does not record specific arguments made by the petitioner regarding the merits of extending the limitation period. Respondent's contention: The respondents, represented by the Additional Chief Standing Counsel, would have argued that the provisions of fiscal statutes must be construed strictly and that the appellate authority correctly applied the law by not entertaining an appeal filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. They would have relied on the strict interpretation of Section 107 of the Act.