Golcha Garments VS Commissioner of GST

Challenging the ‘Order-in-Appeal No. 87/2022-GST/GST (Appeals)’ dated 26.08.2022, this writ petition disputes the Appellate Authority’s decision rendered by the first respondent. The appeal was lodged against the second respondent’s order dated 29.03.2021 concerning a refund claim, now referred to as the ‘impugned order’ for clarity. This petition seeks judicial review, highlighting issues of legality and procedural fairness.

“A writ petition challenges the ‘impugned order’ dated 26.08.2022, referenced as Order-in-Appeal No. 87/2022-GST/GST (Appeals), issued by the first respondent acting as the Appellate Authority. The appeal was filed against an order dated 29.03.2021 by the second respondent in a refund claim. The petitioner, represented by Mr. Sanjay Rajpurohit of M/s. Rajpurohit Law House, contends that while the impugned order found in their favor on merits, it denied relief solely on grounds of procedural limitation. Mr. Rajnish Pathiyil, Senior Panel Counsel for Customs and Indirect Tax, accepts notice on behalf of both respondents. With mutual consent and considering the case’s trajectory, a counter affidavit from the Revenue Department is deemed unnecessary, allowing the main writ petition to proceed.

A main writ petition challenges the ‘impugned order’ dated 26.08.2022, referenced as Order-in-Appeal No. 87/2022-GST/GST (Appeals), issued by the first respondent acting as the Appellate Authority. The petition, filed by Mr. Sanjay Rajpurohit of M/s. Rajpurohit Law House, contends that while the impugned order favored the petitioner on merits, it denied relief solely on grounds of appeal limitation. The original order by the second respondent, dated 29.03.2021, was subject to statutory timelines affected by the Covid-19 period as per rulings including the Suo Motu proceedings reported in (2022) 3 SCC 117. Despite the appeal being filed on 30.05.2022, which was one day beyond the extended limitation period stipulated by the Supreme Court, the petition argues for relief due to the exceptional circumstances during the Covid-19 period.

The main writ petition challenges an order dated 26.08.2022, referred to as the ‘impugned order,’ issued by the first respondent acting as the Appellate Authority. This order stemmed from an appeal against a refund claim decision dated 29.03.2021 by the second respondent. Mr. Sanjay Rajpurohit, representing the petitioner, argued that while the impugned order favored them on merits, relief was denied solely due to the appeal being time-barred.

Mr. Rajnish Pathiyil, representing Customs and Indirect Tax, accepted notice on behalf of both respondents. With mutual consent, no counter affidavit was deemed necessary, prompting the court to proceed with the main writ petition.

Key facts include the original order dated 29.03.2021, where the statutory appeal period elapsed during the COVID-19 period defined from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, acknowledged through Supreme Court directives extending limitation periods. Despite the appeal being filed on 30.05.2022, one day beyond the extended period ending on 29.05.2022, it was argued that this delay didn’t benefit from the extension as the filing deadline was not a prescribed period but a condonable one.

The controversy hinges on interpretations of Sections 2(j) and 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963, regarding the distinction between prescribed and condonable periods, particularly how they apply to public holidays.

Overall, the petition raises significant legal questions about the application of limitation periods in light of exceptional circumstances like those during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Main writ petition challenges the ‘impugned order’ dated 26.08.2022 (Order-in-Appeal No.87/2022-GST/GST (Appeals)) issued by the first respondent, acting as the Appellate Authority. The appeal arose from the second respondent’s order of 29.03.2021 on a refund claim. Mr. Sanjay Rajpurohit, representing the petitioner M/s. Rajpurohit Law House, argued that while the impugned order favored them on merits, relief was denied solely due to the appeal being time-barred.

Mr. Rajnish Pathiyil, Senior Panel Counsel for Customs and Indirect Tax, accepted notice for both respondents. Given the case’s trajectory, with the consent of both parties, no counter affidavit from the Revenue Department was deemed necessary, and the main writ petition proceeded.

The undisputed facts reveal the original order by the second respondent was issued on 29.03.2021. The statutory period for appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, including the condonable period, lapsed during the Covid-19 period (15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022), as per Supreme Court rulings allowing an extended limitation period until 01.03.2022.

The appeal was filed on 30.05.2022, one day after the extended deadline prescribed by the Supreme Court’s order. The Revenue counsel argued that though the 90-day period ending on 29.05.2022 fell on a Sunday, such periods are akin to condonable periods, not prescribed ones, thereby not extending to the next working day.

Referring to Sections 2(j) and 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963, it was contended that while acts can be performed on the next working day when the last day of the prescribed period falls on a public holiday, the same leniency does not apply to condonable periods.

In a similar context, the court’s decision in the Eagle-Omega case highlighted the consequences of filing delays under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, citing the precedent in the Sagufa Ahmed case (2021) 2 SCC 317.

The case underscores the nuanced application of statutory timelines amidst exceptional circumstances, drawing upon judicial precedents and statutory provisions.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: