2025 (7) TMI 324 - HC - GST

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Dismissal of appeal on the ground that the same was not filed within the prescribed time limit as provided under Section 107 (4) of CGST Act 2017 - HELD THAT - The issue as to whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall be applicable for condonation of delay in preferring an appeal under Section 107 of the 2017 Act was considered by this Court in ABDUL AZIZ SARKAR 2025 (4) TMI 1660 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT wherein this Court held that since provisions of Section 5 of the Act of 1963 have not been expressly or impliedly excluded by Section 107 of the Act of 2017 by virtue of Section 29(2) of the Act of 1963 Section 5 of the Act of 1963 stands attracted. Thus it is well settled that in the absence of specific exclusion of Section 5 of the Act of 1963 it would be improper to read an implied exclusion thereof. By applying the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Division Bench in S. K. Chakraborty and Sons 2023 (12) TMI 290 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT this Court is of the considered view that the appellate authority was not justified in rejecting the appeal petition solely on the ground that the same was filed beyond the maximum period of four months. This Court is inclined to interfere with the order passed by the appellate authority thereby rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation - the application for condonation of delay is restored to the file of the appellate authority. The impugned order set aside - application disposed off.

Summary

The principal issue before the Court concerns the validity of the rejection of an appeal filed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter "the 2017 Act") on the grounds of delay and mode of filing. Specifically, the Court considered whether the appellate authority was justified in dismissing the appeal for being time-barred under Section 107(4) of the 2017 Act and for being filed manually without adherence to prescribed electronic filing procedures.

Another key legal question examined was the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter "the Limitation Act") for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under the 2017 Act, particularly whether the special limitation provisions under the 2017 Act exclude the general provisions of the Limitation Act.

Further, the Court addressed the issue of whether manual filing of the appeal was permissible in light of a government notification dated July 31, 2023 (Notification No. 29/2023-Central Tax), which purportedly allows manual presentation of such appeals before the appellate authority.

Issue-wise detailed analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing appeal under Section 107 of the 2017 Act

The relevant legal framework involves the interplay between the special limitation provisions under the 2017 Act and the general limitation provisions under the Limitation Act. Section 107(4) of the 2017 Act prescribes a four-month period for filing an appeal before the appellate authority. Section 5 of the Limitation Act empowers courts or authorities to condone delay in filing appeals or applications if sufficient cause is shown.

Precedents considered include a Division Bench ruling in a related writ petition (WPA 1829 of 2024), which interpreted the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the context of the 2017 Act. The Court relied heavily on the reasoning that Section 107 of the 2017 Act does not expressly or impliedly exclude the applicability of the Limitation Act, especially Section 5, as per Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act.

The Court noted that special statutes prescribing limitation periods do not necessarily exclude the general law of limitation unless expressly stated. Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act provides that where a special law prescribes a limitation period different from the Limitation Act, the provisions of the Limitation Act apply unless expressly excluded.

Moreover, the Court observed that Section 108 of the 2017 Act provides a longer period for revision before a designated authority, indicating that the legislature intended different limitation periods for different authorities without excluding the Limitation Act.

Applying these principles, the Court held that the appellate authority erred in rejecting the appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court emphasized that in the absence of specific exclusion, it would be improper to read an implied exclusion of Section 5.

The Court thus restored the application for condonation of delay to the appellate authority for fresh consideration on merits, directing that the authority must provide an opportunity for hearing and pass a reasoned order.

2. Validity of rejection of appeal on the ground of manual filing in absence of notification permitting such filing

The appellate authority had also dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was filed manually, asserting that no notification authorized manual filing for such appeals.

The petitioner relied on Notification No. 29/2023-Central Tax dated July 31, 2023, which states that appeals of this nature may be presented manually before the appellate authority.

The Court directed the appellate authority to reconsider this aspect in light of the notification, requiring it to pass a reasoned order on whether manual filing of the appeal was permissible. The Court did not itself decide the issue but mandated a fresh determination based on the notification and relevant law.

3. Overall conclusions and directions

The Court set aside the impugned order of the appellate authority dismissing the appeal on grounds of limitation and mode of filing. It restored the condonation of delay application to the appellate authority for fresh adjudication on merits with due opportunity to the parties.

The appellate authority was also directed to reconsider the question of manual filing in light of the July 2023 notification and deliver a reasoned order.

The Court's intervention underscores the principle that limitation provisions in special statutes do not automatically exclude the general law of limitation unless expressly stated, and that authorities must consider condonation applications on their merits rather than mechanically rejecting appeals filed beyond prescribed time limits.

Significant holdings include the Court's clear affirmation that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to appeals under Section 107 of the 2017 Act, as the latter does not expressly or impliedly exclude it. The Court stated:

"Therefore, in our view, since provisions of Section 5 of the Act of 1963 have not been expressly or impliedly excluded by Section 107 of the Act of 2017 by virtue of Section 29(2) of the Act of 1963, Section 5 of the Act of 1963 stands attracted."

This principle establishes that appellate authorities have jurisdiction to condone delay in filing appeals under the 2017 Act, ensuring procedural fairness and access to justice.

Additionally, the Court emphasized the necessity of reasoned orders and opportunity of hearing in adjudicating condonation applications, reinforcing due process requirements.

In sum, the Court remitted the matter to the appellate authority to reconsider both the condonation of delay and the permissibility of manual filing, thereby safeguarding the petitioner's right to have the appeal adjudicated on merits rather than dismissed on procedural technicalities.