M/S Brijesh Kumar Thru. Its Proprietor Mr. Brijesh Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Finance And 5 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Brijesh Kumar, through its proprietor Mr. Brijesh Kumar, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 08.02.2021, which cancelled their GST registration. The petitioner acknowledged the availability of a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017, but stated that the statutory time period for filing the appeal had lapsed. The petitioner sought condonation of delay, relying on the Supreme Court's order in Suo motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, which extended limitation periods due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The respondents argued that the petitioner failed to file the appeal within the prescribed time and therefore the writ petition was not maintainable.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal against the impugned order dated 08.02.2021. While the petitioner was desirous of filing an appeal, they could not do so within the statutory time period. The delay was sought to be explained on the grounds of the COVID-19 pandemic, with reliance placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Suo motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, which extended the period of limitation. Considering this judgment and the availability of the appellate remedy, the writ petition was disposed of. The petitioner was granted leave to file an appeal within two weeks from the date of the order. The Court directed that if such an appeal is filed in accordance with the rules, the appellate authority shall consider the appeal on its merits. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner can be permitted to file an appeal beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 107 of the U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017, considering the Supreme Court's directions in Suo motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 regarding extension of limitation due to the COVID-19 pandemic? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the statutory time period for filing an appeal had lapsed, but sought condonation of this delay by relying on the Supreme Court's order in Suo motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, which extended limitation periods in view of the COVID-19 pandemic. They prayed that the authorities should consider the appeal after condoning the delay. Respondent's Contention: The respondents contended that the petitioner had a remedy of appeal but failed to file it within the statutory time period as prescribed under the Act, rendering the present writ petition not maintainable.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 74 of 2022 Petitioner :- M/S Brijesh Kumar Thru. Its Proprietor Mr. Brijesh Kumar Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Finance And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjieva Shankhdhar,Pradeep Rastogi Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C. Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Dr. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1 & 2 and Shri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents no. 3 to 6. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is finally being disposed of. The instant writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 08.02.2021 by which the GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though he has got a remedy of filing of an appeal under Section 107 of the U.P. G.S.T. Act 2017 yet considering that statutory time period has lapsed the appeal is not liable to be entertained by the appellate authority. Placing reliance on the order of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Suo motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 whereby the Apex Court had extended the period of limitation in view of the COVID 19 pandemic, he prays that the authorities may condone the delay after considering the aforesaid judgement. On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner, if aggrieved against the impugned order, could have filed an appeal but failed to file the appeal within statutory time period as prescribed under the Act 2017 and hence the present petition is not maintainable.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record what is apparent is that the petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal against the impugned order dated 08.02.2021. Though the petitioner was desirous of filing of appeal yet he could not file the appeal within the statutory time period. The delay is sought to be explained on the ground of COVID 19 pandemic and reliance has also been placed on the judgement of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Suo motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 to contend that the period of limitation is bound to be extended. Accordingly, considering the aforesaid judgement of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case Suo motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 (Supra) as well as the fact that the petitioner has the remedy of filing of an appeal, the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to file an appeal within a period of two weeks from today. In case such an appeal is filed in accordance with rules then the appellate authority shall consider
the appeal on merits. Order Date :- 18.4.2022 J.K. Dinkar DINKAR Date: 2022.04.19 13:21:28 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.