Supreme Court Upholds Conviction as Husband Failed to Explain Wife’s Death in Matrimonial Home  ||  Supreme Court: Crime Scene Re-Enactment Does Not Always Violate Right Against Self-Incrimination  ||  Supreme Court: Cognizance Taken Without Hearing Accused under BNSS Section 223 is Void Ab Initio  ||  Supreme Court Upholds Will in Sister’s Favour, Says Excluding Natural Heirs is Not Suspicious  ||  Delhi HC: Absence of Public Witnesses and Videography in NDPS Recovery Relevant for Bail Decisions  ||  Raj HC Initiates Suo Motu Cognizance Over Severe Water Crisis in Jodhpur, Issues Interim Directions  ||  Del HC: Courts Cannot Direct, Monitor Inquiry Into Police Delay in Investigation After Bail Decision  ||  Supreme Court: After the BNSS, a Pre-Cognizance Hearing is Mandatory in PMLA Cases  ||  SC: Landowners Cannot be Forced to Waive Statutory Compensation to Claim Other Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Banks are Lenient With Big Borrowers But Strict With Ordinary Loan Applicants    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved