High Court declined to interfere with dismissal of appeal being barred by limitation

High Court not to interfere with dismissal of appeal being barred by limitation

In a recent judgment, Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has declined to interfere with dismissal of appeal against cancellation of GST registration being barred by limitation.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4259 (2024) (09) abcaus.in HC

In the instant case, the Petitioner/assessee had challenged the order passed by the GST Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal against cancellation of GST Registration.

The petitioners were doing the business having obtained a GSTIN No. which was cancelled on certain ground vide order passed by the UPGST Authorities. When the order was served upon the petitioner, he moved a revocation application but the same was also rejected.

Being aggrieved by the order dismissing the revocation application, the petitioners filed an appeal, which was dismissed as time barred.

The Department contended that the appeal was preferred beyond the period of limitation, which could not be condoned without there being any proper explanation. It was submitted that since the delay in filing the appeal was beyond the period prescribed under Section 107 of the UPGST Act 2017 (the Act) hence the same was dismissed as time barred as no proper explanation had been given for condonation of delay.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that it was not in dispute that after service of the impugned order, the appeal should have been preferred within limitation, but the appeal had been preferred beyond the limitation. Admittedly, the impugned order was also received by the petitioner. Further, before High Court also, petitioners failed to give any good ground for condonation of delay, therefore, High Court held that under extra ordinary jurisdiction, it cannot interfere with the impugned orders.

Further, the Hon’ble High Court noted that the Apex Court has held that the remedy of appeal is creature of statute. If the appeal is presented by the assessee beyond the extended statutory limitation and is, therefore, not entertained, it is incomprehensible as to how it would become a case of violation of fundamental right, much less statutory or legal right as such.

Again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the legislative intent is clear that the Parliament never intended that delay beyond specified period in filing the appeal could be condoned. It is not for the High Court to rewrite the statute in the garb of exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.

In another case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that providing detailed provisions governing limitation period, the legislature ensures certainty and predictability in legal proceedings, thereby promoting efficiency and expeditious resolution of disputes. Moreover, the exclusion of general statutes like the Limitation Act from the purview of special statutes serves to maintain the integrity and coherence of the legislative scheme, preventing potential conflicts and inconsistencies in statutory interpretation.

In view of the facts & circumstances of the case as well as the law laid down by the Supreme Court the Hon’ble High Court declined to interfere in the impugned orders.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• AO took a reasonable stand that 25 kg written in WhatsApp chat was 25 lakh – ITAT
• Shareholders can’t be taxed for income from properties owned by the company – HC
• Jurisdictional error in reassessment approval can’t be shielded by the law of limitation
• ITAT ought to remanded whole matter of bogus purchases instead of profit determination
• Where proceedings u/s 153C barred by limitation, AO can’t invoke section 148 & 148A