Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 13th April, 2023
M/S INDIAN INSTITUTE OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhishek Kumar & Mr. Luv Kumar, Advs.
Through: Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal, Addl. Standing Counsel with Ms. Shilpa Singh &
Mr. Manbhar Mittal, Advs. for R-3.
Mr. B.B. Devan, Mr. Sumit K. Batra & Mr. Manish Khurana, Advs. for R-4.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (Oral)
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 23.05.2022, passed by the Delhi Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (Appellate Authority), whereby the petitioner’s appeal against an order dated 28.06.2019 (hereafter ‘the impugned order’), passed by the Delhi Authority for Advance Ruling was rejected. The Appellate Authority had declined to entertain the petitioner’s appeal on the ground that it was barred by limitation.
2. Section 100 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter ‘the Act’) contains a provision for appeal to the Appellate Authority. The said section is set out below:
3. In terms of Section 100(2) of the Act, an appeal to the Appellate Authority is required to be filed within a period of thirty days from the date on which the ruling sought to be appealed against is communicated to the aggrieved party.
4. In the present case, there is no dispute that the order dated 28.06.2019, passed by the Delhi Authority for Advance Ruling was promptly communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner had filed an appeal on 14.02.2020, which was beyond the period of thirty days as stipulated under Section 100(2) of the Act.
5. The petitioner claims that the delay in filing the appeal is solely on the ground that the Appellate Authority was not constituted. It is stated that the notification constituting the Appellate Authority was issued on 05.09.2019, however, the petitioner was not aware of the same at the material time. It is contended that the petitioner became aware of the constitution of the Appellate Authority in terms of the notification dated 05.09.2019, sometime in the month of November, 2019.
6. Ignorance of the notification cannot be a ground for extending the period of limitation. However, even if it is accepted that the petitioner could not file its appeal as it was not aware of the notification dated 05.09.2019 constituting the Appellate Authority at the material time; it is admitted that the petitioner became aware of the same sometime in the month of November,
2019. Therefore, the petitioner was required to file an appeal at least within thirty days of becoming aware of the constitution of the Appellate Authority.
7. The proviso to Section 100(2) of the Act makes it clear that the Appellate Authority can extend the stipulated period of thirty days for filing the appeal if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by a sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the said period. However, the power of the Appellate Authority is confined to extending the said period by a further period not extending thirty days. Thus, in any event, the Appellate Authority did not have the power to entertain the appeal beyond a period of sixty days from the date of the communication of the order passed by the Appellate Authority.
8. Since the appeal was filed on 14.02.2020, which is also beyond the period of sixty days from the date on which the petitioner received the order dated 28.06.2019 or from the date it became aware of the constitution of the Appellate Authority, the delay is in excess of the period that could be condoned by the appellant.
9. In State of Goa v. Western Builders: (2006) 6 SCC 239 and Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission and Ors.: 2010 (5) SCC 23, the Supreme Court had considered similar provisions where the power of the concerned authority court to extend limitation was limited to a specified period, albeit in the context of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Electricity Act,
2003. The Court had held that given the language of the relevant provision limiting the period for which delay could be condoned, the period of limitation for filing the application / appeal could not be extended beyond the said period.
10. In view of the above, we are unable to fault the decision of the Appellate Authority in declining to entertain the petitioner’s appeal under Section 100 of the Act.
11. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J AMIT MAHAJAN, J APRIL 13, 2023 “SK”