Parihar Tent Workrs Through Proprietor Devendra vs. Appellate Authority And Joint Commisioner Of State Taxes

Held

The Court held that Section 107(1) of the CGST Act and the State GST Act mandates that an appeal must be preferred within three months from the date the decision or order is communicated. Section 107(4) allows the Appellate Authority to condone the delay for a further period of one month if satisfied with sufficient cause. Crucially, the Court noted that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 have not been made applicable to these proceedings. Citing the Supreme Court in Chintels India Limited, the Court reiterated that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply and delays beyond the prescribed period cannot be condoned. The Court found that the petitioner had not disclosed the date of communication of the order, and the limitation was therefore counted from the date of the order. As the delay exceeded the permissible condonation period, the Appellate Authority had no power to condone it, and consequently, the High Court also lacked the power to condone such delay in the absence of statutory provisions. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Parihar Tent Workers, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 26.11.2024 by the Appellate Authority and Joint Commissioner, State Tax Division-II, Indore. This order dismissed the petitioner's appeal as time-barred. The original demand notice dated 21.07.2023 was for Rs. 92,48,360/- for the period 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Appellate Authority with a delay of 9 days and an application for condonation of delay. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal, leading to the present petition. The petitioner sought remand based on a previous High Court order in a similar case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority has the power to condone a delay in filing an appeal beyond the period prescribed under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act/MP GST Act, 2017, especially when the Limitation Act, 1963 is not made applicable? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the matter should be remanded to the Appellate Authority for a decision on merits, citing the Division Bench order in Praveen Murarka Prop. M/s Modware India vs. CGST And Central Excise And Others. The petitioner also claimed a delay of 95 days in filing the appeal, calculated from the date of the order, and sought condonation. Revenue's contention: The State argued that Section 107(1) and (4) of the SGST Act prescribe a strict timeline for filing appeals and condonation of delay. They relied on a Division Bench order in M/s Sai Rubber works vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, which held that appeals must be preferred within four months as an outer limit and that strict compliance is expected under fiscal statutes. They also cited the Supreme Court judgment in Chintels India Limited Vs. Bhayana Builders Private Limited, emphasizing that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply and delays beyond a certain period cannot be condoned.