Maa Bhagwati Construction Company vs. Commissioner State Tax Dehradun

Held

The Court held that the appellate authority has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal that is filed beyond the period prescribed under Section 107(1) read with Section 107(4) of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The reasoning was that the statutory provisions clearly define the time limits for filing appeals, and the appellate authority is bound by these limitations. Since the petitioner's appeal was filed beyond the stipulated period, the appellate authority's dismissal of the appeal on grounds of limitation was found to be legally sound. The Court found no illegality in the impugned order of the appellate authority. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Maa Bhagwati Construction Company, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand challenging an order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Appeal), State Tax, Dehradun. This appellate order dismissed the petitioner's appeal, which was filed under Section 107 of the GST Act, on the grounds that it was barred by limitation. The original order being challenged was passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Assessment), State Tax, Unit-3, Roorkee on 21.06.2023 under Section 74(9) of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner had filed their appeal against this order on 14.01.2024, which was beyond the prescribed limitation period under Section 107(1) read with Section 107(4) of the Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority has the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal filed beyond the period prescribed under Section 107(1) read with Section 107(4) of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that their appeal was dismissed solely on the ground of limitation, implying a challenge to the appellate authority's strict adherence to the time bar without considering any potential condonation or merits. (The judgment does not explicitly record specific arguments from the petitioner regarding condonation or alternative interpretations of the limitation period, but the filing of the writ petition suggests a challenge to the dismissal on limitation grounds.) Revenue's contention: The respondents, represented by the Standing Counsel, likely argued that the appeal was indeed barred by limitation as per the statutory provisions, and therefore, the appellate authority correctly dismissed it. The judgment indicates that the appellate authority's order was based on the limitation period stipulated in Section 107(1) and 107(4) of the Act.