Jharkhand HC refuses to Condone 17 Months in Filing Appeal u/s 107 of CGST Act [Read Order]

The Jharkhand High Court ruled that an appeal filed after the deadline specified under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is not maintainable and that the statute's clear time limits for delays cannot be exceeded.

Read More: Bank account attached during pendency of appeal: Madras HC directs disposal within two months

The petitioner, Bokna Raiyat Rojgar Committee, was filing its return under the GST Act on a regular basis. However, from April 2022 to September 2022, the petitioner firm's service recipients failed to release their bills, which had a negative impact on the business.

Analyzing the Law Behind the Tax - Click Here

On March 26, 2022, the petitioner received a show-cause notice using Form GSTREG-17/31 because they had failed to file their return for six months in a row. The petitioner submitted its response on April 7, 2022; however, the contested ruling was issued, voiding the petitioner's registration under Section 29 of the CGST Act. The petitioner then filed an appeal after the three-month statute of limitations had passed, and as a result, the appeal was likewise denied by the appellate order dated 26.02.2024.

The petitioner argued that although at first he was filing his returns on a regular basis through its accountant, his business suffered because the petitioner firm's recipient did not release bills, and that was the only reason he was unable to file the returns as required by the Act.

Analyzing the Law Behind the Tax - Click Here

The respondents' counsel backs the contested orders and argues that neither the appellate order nor the order canceling the GST registration are perverse or unlawful.

Read More:  Personal Gold Jewellery Worn at Family Event Abroad Seized at Airport: Delhi HC Orders Immediate Release

Chief Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan comprised the Division Bench, which ruled that even in the absence of such a period, it cannot be excused because it is incorporated in the statute itself. In light of the fact that the petitioner failed to file its return for a continuous period of six months and that the petitioner-firm filed an appeal with the appellate authority nearly 17 months later—a period that is admittedly longer than the three-month window for filing an appeal under Section 107 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017—the bench determined that the petitioner firm is not entitled to any relief on the grounds of being lethargic in approach.

Analyzing the Law Behind the Tax - Click Here

Further, the Court reaffirmed that , “At the cost of repetition, since the appeal has been filed after a delay of almost 17 months; as such, neither there is any perversity in the order of cancellation of GST registration; nor is there any necessity for interference with the appellate order, inasmuch as, the appeal has been filed beyond the statutory period of limitation.”

Read More:  Inordinate 11-Year Delay in Adjudication Violates S. 11A(11) of Central Excise Act: Delhi HC Orders Release of Goods

The Court ruled that the statutory period could not be extended forever and rejected the explanation. "If the appellate authority is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of three months, then he may allow a further period of one month," the Court explained in its ruling, citing Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 as the explicit deadline for filing an appeal.

Analyzing the Law Behind the Tax - Click Here

The bench dismissed the writ petition against the cancellation of its GST registration and the rejection of its appeal by the Appellate Authority as there was no ground to interfere with either the cancellation order or the rejection of the appeal.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates