M/S R. A. Mazumder vs. The Union Of INDIA And Ors

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was filed beyond the period of limitation, irrespective of whether the CGST Act or the Finance Act, 1994, was applicable. The Court found that the Order in Original was dated March 30, 2023, and communicated on April 10, 2023. Even if a 3-month period of limitation (as canvassed by the petitioner) was applied from the date of communication, it would expire by July 9, 2023. The writ petition was filed on August 5, 2023. The Court also held that the condonable period under Section 85 of the Finance Act would not extend the original prescribed period of limitation. Therefore, the Court found no error in its previous judgment dismissing the writ petition on grounds of limitation. The review petition was dismissed. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to approach the appellate authority and seek condonation of delay, taking all permissible grounds.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s R.A. Mazumder, filed a review petition against a High Court order that dismissed its writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed for being filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed for preferring an appeal under Section 107(1) read with Section 107(4) of the CGST Act. The Order in Original was dated March 30, 2023, and communicated on April 10, 2023. The writ petition was filed on August 5, 2023. The petitioner argued that the proceedings related to Service Tax dues under the Finance Act, 1994, not the CGST Act, and that the Finance Act provided a different limitation period. The Court noted that even if the Finance Act applied, the petition was filed late.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition was filed within the period of limitation prescribed for preferring an appeal against the Order in Original, considering the applicable statute and its provisions regarding limitation and condonation of delay? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the proceedings were under the Finance Act, 1994, for Service Tax dues pertaining to the financial year 2016-17, which has a different limitation period than the CGST Act. The petitioner also argued that there was a subsequent amendment allowing a 3-month period for appeal, and that under Section 85 of the Finance Act, a further period of 3 months for condoning delay was available. Respondents' arguments: The respondents (Union of India and the Commissioner/Additional Commissioner, Central GST) argued that the writ petition was filed after the expiry of the period of limitation. They relied on the ratio in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & others vs. Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Health Care Limited (2020) 19 SCC 681, which deals with limitation for appeals.