Table of Contents
Comment
The Court supported the petitioner’s argument, affirming that the Act establishes a distinct limitation period, thereby exempting the relevance of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Pleading
The petitioner, through their counsel, argued that the appeal should not have been dismissed solely on the basis of being time-barred, as the Limitation Act, 1963, does not apply to Section 107 of the Act. The petitioner contended that the appellate authority lacked jurisdiction to condone delays beyond the period specified under the statute, and cited relevant Supreme Court decisions to support their argument.
Facts
M/S Garg Enterprises filed a writ petition challenging the order dated January 18, 2022, passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the Act”). The appellate authority dismissed the petitioner’s appeal as time-barred, as it was filed more than 28 months after the order dated August 2, 2019.
Observation
The record confirms that the petitioner’s appeal was indeed filed beyond the prescribed time limit. The Court noted that the Central Goods and Services Act constitutes a self-contained code, and Section 107 thereof has impliedly excluded the application of the Limitation Act. Consequently, Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked in this matter.