P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Garg Enterprises vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:9851) - (High Court of Allahabad) (19 Jan 2024)

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, will apply only if it is extended to the special statute

MANU/UP/0197/2024

Goods and Services Tax

Present is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the appellate authority being the Additional Commissioner, under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. By the aforesaid order, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioner on the ground that, the same was time barred as it was filed beyond the period of four months.

In the order impugned, it has clearly been pointed out by the appellate authority that the order impugned has been passed on August 2, 2019, whereas the appeal was filed on December 27, 2021, that is, after the period of more than 28 months and way beyond the time prescribed under Section 107 of the Act.

Perusal of the record shows that, the appeal was filed beyond time and when there is no dispute with regard to filing of the appeal beyond the time prescribed, this Court under the extraordinary jurisdiction cannot interfere with the appellate authority's order as the application of Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to Section 107 of the Act.

The Central Goods and Services Act is a special statute and a self-contained code by itself. Section 107 of the Act has an inbuilt mechanism and has impliedly excluded the application of the Limitation Act. It is trite law that, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will apply only if it is extended to the special statute.

Section 107 of the Act specifically provides for the limitation and in the absence of any clause condoning the delay by showing sufficient cause after the prescribed period, there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Accordingly, one cannot apply Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the aforesaid provision. No interference is required in present petition. Petition dismissed.

Tags : DELAY   PROVISION   APPLICABILITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved