Laxmi Motors vs. State Of M.P.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order of the Appellate Authority is not sustainable in law. Firstly, it was found that the period of limitation for filing the appeal should commence from the day following the date of the order, i.e., 27.7.2024, in accordance with Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. This principle was supported by the Supreme Court's reference to Section 3(35) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, defining a 'month' as per the British Calendar, and decisions like Dodds Vs. Walker and Bibi Salma Khatoon v. State of Bihar, which establish that a period of months ends on the corresponding date in the subsequent month. Therefore, three months from 27.7.2024 would expire on 27.10.2024. Secondly, the Court noted that Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, provides an additional grace period of one month. This extended the period of limitation to 26.11.2024. Since the appeal was filed on 25.11.2024, it was filed within the prescribed limitation period. The Appellate Authority's failure to consider these provisions and the Supreme Court's pronouncements led to the dismissal of the appeal. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed that the appeal be decided on its merits. The State was directed to bear the litigation costs.

Facts

The petitioner, Laxmi Motors, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 13.8.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority and Joint Commissioner, State Taxes, Satna Division. This order dismissed Laxmi Motors' appeal against an order dated 26.7.2024, deeming the appeal to be barred by limitation. The appeal was filed on 25.11.2024. The petitioner contended that the limitation period was miscalculated by the appellate authority. The original order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Rewa. The State argued that the limitation was computed as 120 days, making the appeal barred by two days.

Key Issues

1. Whether the period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 107(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is to be computed by excluding the day on which the order was passed, in terms of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897? 2. Whether the term 'three months' under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, refers to calendar months, and how is the expiry of this period to be calculated? 3. Whether the additional grace period of one month provided under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, was correctly considered by the appellate authority? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that as per Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the day of passing the order (26.7.2024) should be excluded, and limitation should commence from 27.7.2024. They further contended that Section 107(1) specifies a limitation of 'three months', not 90 days, and this period, calculated as calendar months, would expire on 27.10.2024. Considering the one-month grace period under Section 107(4), the appeal filed on 25.11.2024 was within the extended limitation period. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Himachal Techno Engineers. Revenue's Arguments: The State submitted that the limitation was computed as 120 days, rendering the appeal barred by two days. They also stated that copies of referenced judgments were not provided.