M/S Rene vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court held that while the Appellate Authority correctly applied Section 107 of the Act of 2017, as the Act does not empower the appellate authority to extend the limitation period, the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, can condone the delay by imposing reasonable conditions. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's prayer to deposit the remaining tax liability and considered the principle of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order dated 05.05.2026 was quashed. The Court directed that the petitioner's appeal be heard on merits, subject to the deposit of the entire remaining tax liability of Rs. 7,62,936.08 (after adjusting the 10% already deposited) within 30 days. The delay was condoned by the High Court, and the Appellate Authority was instructed to decide the appeal on merits without insisting on the limitation period.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Rene, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 05.05.2026 by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), State Tax, Durg. The appeal was rejected due to a delay of 509 days. The Appellate Authority noted that the original order dated 13.08.2024 was uploaded on the portal on the same day, making the appeal deadline 12.11.2024. The petitioner argued that the original order was not properly communicated as per Section 169 of the GST Act, 2017, and that the limitation period should not be reckoned from the portal upload date. The assessment order had determined a liability of Rs. 17,40,345.00, including tax, interest, and penalty, of which Rs. 84,772/- had already been deposited.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in rejecting the appeal solely on the ground of limitation, considering the petitioner's contention that the original order was not properly communicated as per Section 169 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the appeal was wrongly treated as barred by limitation because the order dated 13.08.2024 was not communicated in accordance with Section 169 of the Act of 2017. Therefore, the limitation period should not commence from the date of portal upload. They also argued for an opportunity to be heard and proposed to deposit the remaining tax liability to have the appeal decided on merits. Revenue's arguments: The State argued that no statutory provision exists in the Act of 2017 for extension of limitation, and therefore, the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, cannot condone the delay. They prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.