Tax appeals dismissed for delay despite COVID-19 extension by Supreme Court.

Case Name:

Sri Sanjib Kumar Pal, Prop. of M/s Sanjib Kumar Paul, Halahali, Kamalpur, District Dhalai, Tripura-799286 v. Union of India, State of Tripura, Commissioner of Taxes, Additional Commissioner of State Tax, and Superintendent of State Tax

Key Takeaways:

- The court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner's tax appeals on the grounds of delay. - The appeals were filed beyond the statutory limitation period prescribed under Section 107(4) of the Tripura State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, even after considering the COVID-19 related extension granted by the Supreme Court. - The court held that the special limitation period under the GST Act would prevail over the general Limitation Act, 1963. **Issue:** Whether the appellate authority committed an error or illegality in rejecting the appeals filed under Section 107(1) of the Tripura State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, on the grounds of delay beyond the stipulated period prescribed under Section 107(4) of the Act, despite the COVID-19 related extension granted by the Supreme Court. **Facts:** - The petitioner filed appeals on 24.03.2023 against tax adjudication orders dated 03.06.2020 for two different tax periods. - The appeals were filed under Section 107(1) of the Tripura State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. - The appellate authority rejected the appeals as being filed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 107(4) of the Act. - The petitioner cited medical grounds and COVID-19 related delays as reasons for the delay. - The Supreme Court had granted an extension of limitation periods due to COVID-19 in its order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020. **Arguments:** - Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the delay should be condoned due to medical grounds and the COVID-19 related extension granted by the Supreme Court. - Respondent's Arguments: The respondents argued that the special limitation period prescribed under Section 107(4) of the GST Act would prevail over the general Limitation Act, 1963, and the appeals were filed beyond the statutory period even after considering the COVID-19 extension. **Key Legal Precedents:** The court cited the Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020, which extended the limitation periods for various legal proceedings, including appeals, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. **Judgment:** The court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the appellate authority's decision to reject the appeals as being filed beyond the statutory limitation period prescribed under Section 107(4) of the Tripura State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The court held that the special limitation period under the GST Act would prevail over the general Limitation Act, 1963, and the COVID-19 related extension granted by the Supreme Court did not apply beyond the statutory period prescribed in the GST Act. **FAQs:** Q: What was the main issue in this case? A: The main issue was whether the appellate authority committed an error or illegality in rejecting the petitioner's tax appeals on the grounds of delay beyond the statutory limitation period prescribed under Section 107(4) of the Tripura State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, despite the COVID-19 related extension granted by the Supreme Court. Q: Why did the court dismiss the writ petitions? A: The court dismissed the writ petitions because it held that the special limitation period prescribed under Section 107(4) of the GST Act would prevail over the general Limitation Act, 1963, and the appeals were filed beyond the statutory period even after considering the COVID-19 extension granted by the Supreme Court. Q: What was the significance of the Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020? A: The Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 granted an extension of limitation periods for various legal proceedings, including appeals, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the court in this case held that the special limitation period under the GST Act would prevail over the general extension granted by the Supreme Court. Q: What was the court's reasoning behind upholding the appellate authority's decision? A: The court reasoned that since the limitation period for filing appeals is prescribed under Section 107(4) of the Tripura State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which is a special statute, the same would be governed by that provision. Any plea for condonation of delay relying upon the Limitation Act, 1963, beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 107(4) of the GST Act cannot be accepted.

Both WP(C) No.338 of 2023 and WP(C) No.345 of 2023 are being heard together and would be decided by the common order as both the writ petitions raise common grievances.

[2] Heard Mr. T. K. Deb, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned Government Advocate together with Mr. Bidyut Majumder, learned Deputy SGI & Mr. K. De, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the respondents.

[3] The bare facts essential for adjudication of these two writ petitions are being narrated hereunder in short:

The appeal [WP(C) No.338 of 2023] preferred by the petitioner herein on 24.03.2023 against the adjudication order dated 03.06.2020 concerning the tax period April, 2018 to March, 2019 has been rejected on grounds of delay by the appellate authority as beyond the stipulated period under Section 107(4) of the Tripura State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Petitioner had taken medical grounds for the delay apart from COVID-19 related grounds. The appellate authority has dealt with the issue of limitation, also taking into account the extension of limitation granted by the Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 and dismissed it as being grossly barred by limitation.

The appeal [WP(C) No.345 of 2023] preferred by the petitioner herein on 24.03.2023 against the adjudication order dated 03.06.2020 concerning the tax period July, 2017 to March, 2018 has also been rejected on grounds of delay by the appellate authority as beyond the stipulated period under Section 107(4) of the Tripura State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Petitioner had taken medical grounds to explain the delay apart from COVID-19 related grounds. The appellate authority has in the instant matter also dealt with the issue of limitation, also taking into account the extension of limitation granted by the Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 and dismissed it as being grossly barred by limitation.

[4] The only issue which emerges from perusal of the pleadings on record and upon hearing of the learned counsel for the parties, is whether the appellate authority committed an error or illegality in rejecting the appeal preferred under Section 107(1) of the Tripura State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on the grounds of delay in preferring the appeal beyond the stipulated period prescribed under Section 107(4) of the Tripura State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. As the chronology of facts discloses, the adjudication order for both the tax period is 3rd June, 2020. The appeals were preferred on 24th March, 2023. The period of limitation in preferring any such appeal was extended by virtue of the order passed by the Apex Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition(C) No.3 of 2020 on the first occasion on 15th March, 2020 and thereafter, subsequently extended from time to time and lastly extended by order dated 10th January, 2022.

[5] Since the adjudication order was passed on 3rd June, 2020 during the Covid-19 period and the lockdown, any appeal arising therefrom under Section 107(1) of the Tripura State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 would have been filed by 28th May, 2022 and not beyond it. The appeals have been preferred on 24th March, 2023 after the delay of almost nine months thereafter. The learned appellate authority vide impugned order dated 02.05.2023 in the respective appeals has also taken into consideration the Covid-19 related grounds and the extension of limitation period as per the order passed by the Apex Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020. The order of the Apex Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 extending period of limitation in all such matters including appeal is extracted hereunder:

“5. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of MA No.21 of 2022 with the following directions:

5.1. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.

5.2. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 3.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 1.03.2022.

5.3. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 1-3-2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 1-3-2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.

5.4. It is further clarified that the period from 15-3-2020 till 28-2-2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23(4) and 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.”

[6] The respondents-State have also taken the same plea in their counter affidavit. They also state that apart from the appellate order no other challenge has been made. Therefore, the challenge is confined to the legality and correctness of the appellate order dated 02.05.2023. Since the limitation for filing appeals is prescribed under Section 107(4) of the Tripura State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 being a special statute, the same would be governed thereby. Any plea for condonation of delay relying upon the Limitation Act, 1963 beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 107(4) of the Act of 2017 cannot be accepted.

[7] As such, we do not find any merit in these appeals. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(ARINDAM LODH), J (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ