GST appeal
filed 3 + 1 months later is beyond statutory limit and cannot be entertained - Chhattisgarh
High Court
Introduction
The High Court of
Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, in WPT No. 285 of 2022, decided on 02 May
2023, dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s Farhat Construction, a
proprietorship firm, challenging the rejection of its GST appeal on grounds of
limitation. The Court examined whether the firm could seek relief under Article
226 despite having filed its appeal long after the Supreme Court’s COVID-19
limitation extension order.
The Court ultimately held
that even after applying the extended COVID limitation window, the taxpayer’s
appeal was still hopelessly time-barred and the appellate authority was
right in rejecting it.
Parties
Petitioner:
- M/s Farhat Construction,
through Proprietor Israr Ahmad
Respondents:
1. State
of Chhattisgarh
2. Commissioner,
Commercial Tax, GST
3. Joint
Commissioner (Appellate), State Tax, Durg
4. Assistant
Commissioner (Appellate), State Tax, Durg
Case Number, Court &
Date
- Case No.:
WPT No. 285 of 2022
- Court:
High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur
- Presiding Judge:
Hon’ble Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
- Date of Order:
02/05/2023
Background
of the Case
M/s Farhat Construction
is registered under GST since 01.07.2017. The GST Department found short-payment
of tax amounting to Rs.16,04,845 (CGST ₹8,02,423 + SGST ₹8,02,423).
On 28–29 January 2021,
the Adjudicating Authority passed an ex-parte assessment order confirming tax
difference of Rs. 33,66,672 and issued DRC-07.
The petitioner challenged
this order by filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, but
the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation on 10.11.2022.
This led to the filing of
the present writ petition.
Petitioner’s
Submissions
The petitioner raised the
following major points:
1. Appeal wrongly
dismissed as time-barred
- The Appellate Authority wrongly
calculated delay as 536 days, ignoring the Supreme Court’s COVID-19
limitation extension order dated 10.01.2022.
- As per the Supreme Court, the period 15.03.2020
to 28.02.2022 must be excluded from limitation calculations.
2. Appeal should be
treated as within extended time
- Petitioner argued that limitation
should start from 01.03.2022, and therefore the appeal was not
excessively delayed.
3. COVID-19 difficulties
- Petitioner claimed the firm and its
proprietor were affected by COVID-19, and delay was due to the pandemic.
4. Reliance on High Court
rulings
- Cited decisions from:
- Orissa High Court
(M/s Shree Udyog)
- Calcutta High Court
(Kajal Dutta)
Where
courts showed leniency during the pandemic.
Respondent’s
Submissions
The State opposed the
petition vigorously:
1. Appeal was filed after
10 months of extended limitation
- Even after excluding the COVID period
(till 28.02.2022), the appeal filed on 07.10.2022 was far beyond
the permissible period.
2. Section 107 strictly
limits appellate timelines
- Appeal must be filed within:
- 3 months
as a right
- +1 month
additional, subject to condonation
- No authority
to condone delay beyond 4 months total.
3. GST Act is a complete
code
- Limitation Act does NOT apply.
- Cited Division Bench judgment in Nandan
Steels & Power Ltd, which held delay cannot be condoned beyond
statutory limits.
Legal
Principles Discussed
1. Supreme Court’s
COVID-19 Limitation Order (10.01.2022)
The Court reproduced key
parts:
- Period 15.03.2020–28.02.2022
to be excluded in computing limitation.
- Fresh 90-day limitation starting from
01.03.2022 where limitation expired during COVID.
Thus appeal period
effectively ended around 30/31 May 2022 (or June 2022 including
condonable 1 month).
2. Appeal was filed much
later
- Appeal filed on 07.10.2022, over
4 months after the extended window had closed.
3. No pleadings
explaining delay
- Petitioner failed to plead any
compelling reason for failing to file within extended time.
4. GST Appellate
Authority becomes functus officio
Once the outer limit (3 +
1 months) expires, the authority loses power to accept the appeal.
5. Cited jurisprudence
- Hongo India
- Singh Enterprises
- Patel Brothers
These
cases consistently hold that when a special law fixes a maximum condonable
period, it cannot be extended further.
Court’s
Findings
The Court made the
following observations:
1. Even after COVID
exclusion, appeal is still late
- COVID exclusion gives appeals time
until May/June 2022.
- Appeal filed in October 2022,
hence clearly time-barred.
2. Petitioner failed to
justify delay
- No explanation for why appeal could
not be filed during the extended timeframe.
3. Wrong calculation of
“536 days delay” does not help
Even if the Appellate
Authority miscalculated delay, it does not change the fact that the
appeal remains beyond the maximum permissible period.
4. Remand would be
useless
Sending matter back to
Appellate Authority would serve no purpose, since it cannot legally
condone such a long delay.
5. Judgments relied on by
petitioner not applicable
- Those cases involved appeals filed within
time, but with late filing of certified copies.
- In this case, the appeal itself was
filed after limitation had fully expired.
Final
Judgment
The High Court held that:
- The appeal was clearly beyond the
statutory maximum period allowed under Section 107.
- COVID-19 extension does not save the
appeal.
- The Appellate Authority rightly
dismissed the appeal.
- Consequently, the writ petition has
no merit.
👉 Writ Petition dismissed.
Conclusion
This judgment reinforces
strict compliance with GST appellate timelines. Even extraordinary events like
COVID-19 do not give taxpayers an unlimited window to file appeals. The CGST
Act creates a self-contained mechanism, and the Appellate Authorities cannot
condone delay beyond the statutory ceiling.
Disclaimer: All the Information is based on the notification, circular advisory and order issued by the Govt. authority and judgement delivered by the court or the authority information is strictly for educational purposes and on the basis of our best understanding of laws & not binding on anyone.
Press On Click Here To Download Order File
Click here
