M/S Ankit Motors vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that the appellate authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal solely on the grounds of limitation without considering the benefit of the Supreme Court's order. The Supreme Court's direction provided a 90-day period from 01.03.2022, with the longer period applying if the actual remaining limitation was greater. The appellate authority's order dated 25.08.2022 failed to consider this crucial aspect, particularly the second part of the Supreme Court's direction. The Court also noted the Appellate Authority's power under Section 107(4) of the GST Act to condone delay for sufficient cause. Consequently, the order dated 25.08.2022 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the appellate authority for a decision on the appeal on its merits, with the delay being condoned in view of the Supreme Court's directions.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Ankit Motors, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 25.08.2022 passed by the appellate authority. This order dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an earlier order dated 22.09.2021, solely on the grounds of being barred by limitation under Section 107 of the GST Act. The petitioner had filed their appeal on 30.06.2022, after the initial order was passed on 22.09.2021. The core of the petitioner's argument revolves around the benefit of limitation extension granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Misc. Application No. 21 of 2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 03 of 2020.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the extension of limitation as per the Supreme Court's order in Misc. Application No. 21 of 2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 03 of 2020, in filing their appeal against the order dated 22.09.2021. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court's order provided a period of 90 days from 01.03.2022, or a longer period if the actual remaining limitation was greater. They contended that the appellate authority failed to consider the second part of this direction, which would have extended their limitation period. They also referred to the Appellate Authority's power under Section 107(4) of the GST Act to condone delay for sufficient cause by an additional 30 days. Respondent's contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the respondent State of U.P. and 2 Others.