M/S Firdous Metal Store vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors. (Finance)

Held

The Court acknowledged that there is a provision for appeal against the impugned order under Section 107 of the Jammu and Kashmir GST Act. However, the Court noted the petitioner's submission that the three-month limitation period for filing the appeal would have elapsed due to the delayed notice of the order. The Court accepted the Advocate General's suggestion to direct the appellate authority to consider the appeal that may be preferred by the petitioner within two months from the date of the order, waiving the limitation period. The Court disposed of the petition with the observation that the petitioner should approach the appellate authority and, if aggrieved by the appellate authority's order, can avail further legal remedies. The Court did not decide on the merits of the case or the validity of the impugned order itself.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Firdous Metal Store, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh challenging an order. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was brought to their notice only in September 2023, and the statutory period of three months for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Jammu and Kashmir GST Act would have elapsed by the time of filing. The petitioner argued that the appellate authority would likely not entertain an appeal filed beyond the limitation period. The Advocate General for the respondents suggested that the appellate authority be directed to consider the appeal, waiving the limitation period, without setting a precedent.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner can avail the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Jammu and Kashmir GST Act, given that the limitation period for filing the appeal has likely expired. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they were only made aware of the impugned order in September 2023, and the three-month limitation period for filing an appeal would have elapsed, preventing them from availing the statutory remedy. They feared the appellate authority would reject the appeal on grounds of limitation. Revenue/State's contention: The Advocate General submitted that, without creating a precedent, the appellate authority could be directed to consider the appeal that the petitioner might file within two months from the date of the order, waiving the limitation period.