M/S. Roy Co And Varieties vs. The State Of Tripura And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order passed by the appellate authority, dated October 14, 2022, was liable to be set aside. The Court found that the appellate authority's order did not disclose the reasons as to how the appeal was barred by limitation. The Court emphasized that the respondent authority ought to have passed a speaking order, meticulously computing the limitation period in light of Section 107(4) of the CGST Act. This section grants the appellate authority the power to condone delays. Furthermore, the Court noted that the appellate authority failed to consider the impact of the Supreme Court's orders extending statutory limitations due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The matter was therefore remanded back to the appellate authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law, with specific directions to pass a speaking order after properly computing the limitation period, taking into account Section 107(4) and the Supreme Court's directives.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Roy Co. and Varieties, a sole proprietorship engaged in selling glasses, had its vehicle and goods seized on September 20, 2019, due to a mismatch between the E-way bill and tax invoice. A final order under Section 138 of the CGST Act was passed on September 27, 2019. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the appellate authority solely on the grounds of delay. The petitioner contends that the appellate authority failed to consider the provisions of Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, which allows for condonation of delay, and the Supreme Court's extension of statutory limitations due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The appeal was filed on October 29, 2021, after the initial order dated September 27, 2019.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal solely on the grounds of delay, without considering the provisions of Section 107(4) of the CGST Act and the Supreme Court's orders extending statutory limitations due to the COVID-19 pandemic? (Question of law) Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that Section 107(4) of the CGST Act empowers the appellate authority to allow an appeal to be filed within a further period of one month beyond the initial three or six months, totaling seven months. They further contended that the Supreme Court's extension of all statutory limitations until February 28, 2022, meant their appeal, filed on October 29, 2021, was well within time, especially considering the COVID-19 outbreak from March 15, 2020. The appellate authority's order, therefore, failed to exercise its power under Section 107(4) and did not properly compute the limitation period in light of the Supreme Court's directives. Respondent's contentions: The respondents argued that the limitation period for filing the appeal expired on January 30, 2020. They asserted that the Supreme Court's exemption period for limitations started from March 15, 2020, which was after their limitation had already expired. Even considering an additional month for condonation, the limitation was over. They also noted the absence of an application for condonation of delay before the appellate authority.