Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/s Farhat Construction, a proprietorship firm at Bhilai, Chhattisgarh, registered under GST from 01.07.2017, was assessed for short payment of GST amounting to Rs.16,04,845/- (CGST and SGST). The Adjudicating Authority, by order dated 28-29.01.2021, determined a differential tax of Rs.33,66,672/- and issued a demand under Form DRC-07. The petitioner's appeal under Section 107(1) of the GST Act against this order was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 10.11.2022 solely on the ground of limitation, computing the delay at 536 days. The petitioner challenged this dismissal before the Chhattisgarh High Court, contending the delay computation was wrong in light of the Supreme Court's COVID-19 limitation-extension order.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the Appellate Authority's computation of a 536-day delay was incorrect having regard to the Supreme Court's limitation-extension order in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation.
  2. Even if the delay computation was recalculated, whether the appeal — filed on 07.10.2022 against an order dated 28-29.01.2021 — would still fall within time.
  3. Whether the Appellate Authority in any event has power under the GST Act to condone delay beyond the statutorily permitted period.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner argued that the Appellate Authority's computation of 536 days' delay was per se wrong, since the Supreme Court's order dated 10.01.2022 excluded the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for limitation purposes, and the true limitation period should be counted from 01.03.2022.
  • It was submitted that the delay was caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, during which the petitioner himself was infected, warranting a pragmatic approach to condonation, citing M/s. Shree Udyog v. Commissioner of State Tax, Odisha and Kajal Dutta v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (Calcutta High Court).

Respondent's Arguments

  • The State submitted that, per the Supreme Court's extension order, the fresh limitation period of 90 days commenced from 01.03.2022 and expired by end-May/June 2022 (accounting for the further one-month extension under Section 107(4)), whereas the appeal was filed only on 07.10.2022 — well beyond even the extended period.
  • It was submitted that the Act is a complete code and the Limitation Act's general condonation provisions do not apply beyond the outer limit fixed by Section 107(4), relying on the Division Bench ruling in Nandan Steels and Power Limited v. State of Chhattisgarh, which in turn applied Supreme Court precedents including Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise v. Hongo India Pvt. Ltd.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court extracted the Supreme Court's order excluding 15.03.2020-28.02.2022 for limitation purposes and granting a uniform 90-day period from 01.03.2022 (or the longer balance period, if greater).
  • The Court found that even accepting the petitioner's contention that the 536-day computation was wrong, the recalculated limitation period — 90 days from 01.03.2022 plus the further one-month extension under Section 107(4) — expired by the end of June 2022, whereas the appeal was filed only on 07.10.2022, still well beyond time, making the exercise of remand pointless.
  • The Court also noted there was no specific pleading explaining why the appeal could not be filed within the extended period, and that the appeal form itself, at the relevant column, stated 'No' delay had occurred, leaving the delay details blank.
  • Distinguishing Shree Udyog (where the appeal itself was timely but the certified copy was filed late due to COVID infection of counsel and client), the Court held this case did not present comparable facts, since the limitation here expired well after normalisation of the pandemic.
  • Following Nandan Steels, the Court reaffirmed that the Appellate Authority has no power to condone delay in filing a GST appeal beyond the statutorily permitted period.
  • Finding no merit, the writ petition was dismissed.

Important Clarification

  • The Supreme Court's COVID-19 limitation-extension order (exclusion of 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, with a uniform 90-day period from 01.03.2022) is to be actually applied arithmetically to the facts — a petitioner cannot rely on the extension in the abstract if the recalculated period still leaves the appeal time-barred.
  • Under Section 107 of the GST Act, being a complete code, the Appellate Authority has no power to condone delay beyond the three-month period plus the further one-month extension permitted by Section 107(4), regardless of the pandemic-extension order.

Sections Involved

  • Section 107, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – prescribes the limitation period for filing a first appeal and the Appellate Authority's limited power (one further month) to condone delay.
  • Supreme Court order in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation – excluded 15.03.2020-28.02.2022 for limitation purposes across judicial/quasi-judicial proceedings, with a uniform 90-day period from 01.03.2022.

Decision – In Favour of

The decision is in favour of the Department — the writ petition was dismissed on the merits of the limitation computation, upholding the appellate dismissal of the GST appeal as time-barred.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur
Case No.: WPT No. 285 of 2022
Coram: Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Date of Order: 02.05.2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.