Nandan Steels And Power Limited vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The appellant, Nandan Steels and Power Limited, filed TRAN-1 to claim CGST input credit of Rs. 30,74,436/-. The Adjudicating Authority disallowed Rs. 25,33,950/-. The appellant filed an appeal before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) on December 16, 2019, depositing 10% of the disputed amount. The appeal was rejected on December 20, 2019, as being barred by limitation. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging this order, seeking a direction to hear the appeal on merits. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Appellate Authority had no power to entertain an appeal beyond the period stipulated in Section 107(4) of the CGST Act.

Held

The Court held that the CGST Act is a special law and prescribes specific periods of limitation in Sections 107(1) and 107(4). Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act states that Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act apply only to the extent they are not expressly excluded by a special or local law. The CGST Act, by providing specific time limits for appeals and a limited power to condone delay (Section 107(4)), implicitly excludes the broader condonation powers under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court noted that the Legislature, in Section 117(1) and (2) concerning appeals to the High Court, did not provide a specific time limit for entertaining appeals beyond the prescribed period if sufficient cause was shown, implying that where such specific provisions are absent, the Limitation Act might apply, but this is not the case for appeals under Section 107. Therefore, the Appellate Authority under Section 107(4) has no power to condone delay beyond the aggregate period of three months plus one month. The appeal was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority under Section 107(4) of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) has the power to condone delay in filing an appeal beyond the further period of one month, by invoking Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963? Appellant's contention: The appellant argued that the delay was due to the serious ailment of their Chartered Accountant. They contended that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act should apply as the CGST Act does not expressly exclude the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, thus empowering the Appellate Authority to condone the delay upon sufficient cause. Respondents' contention: The respondents argued that the CGST Act is a special law and a complete code in itself. They asserted that the relevant provisions clearly indicate an exclusion of the Limitation Act, making the appellant's submission regarding the power to condone delay beyond the prescribed period misplaced. They relied on Supreme Court judgments in Patel Brothers v. State of Assam, P. Radha Bai and Others v. P. Ashok Kumar and Another, and Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and Others.