Appeal filed after prescribed time limit cannot be entertained


Quick Summary
The Kerala High Court has upheld the rejection of a GST appeal filed beyond the prescribed time limit. The court ruled that the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) is a self-contained code that implicitly excludes the Limitation Act, 1963. Therefore, the Additional Commissioner was correct to dismiss an appeal filed 209 days late.

Court :
Kerala High Court

Brief :
The Hon'ble Kerala High Court inM/s Penuel Nexus Pvt Ltd. v. The Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Cochin [WP(C) No. 15574 of 2023 dated June 13, 2023]held that the Additional Commissioner ("the Respondent") is right in rejecting the time-barred appeal as section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("the CGST Act") has an inbuilt mechanism and has impliedly excluded the application of the Limitation Act, 1963. 

Citation :
WP(C) No. 15574 of 2023 dated June 13, 2023

The Hon'ble Kerala High Court inM/s Penuel Nexus Pvt Ltd. v. The Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Cochin [WP(C) No. 15574 of 2023 dated June 13, 2023]held that the Additional Commissioner ("the Respondent") is right in rejecting the time-barred appeal as section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("the CGST Act") has an inbuilt mechanism and has impliedly excluded the application of the Limitation Act, 1963. 

Facts

M/s Penuel Nexus Pvt Ltd. ("the Petitioner") is engaged in the business of direct marketing. The business of the Petitioner was heavily affected due to Covid-19 pandemic resulting in non-filing of GST return on time.
Petitioner's registration was cancelled by the Proper Officer vide an order dated August 10, 2022 ("the Order in Original"). 

Aggrieved by the Order in Original, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Respondent who rejected the Appeal on the ground that the appeal is time-barred as it was filed on March 7, 2023  i.e. after 209 days of the Order in Original.

Issue

Whether an appeal can be filed beyond the time period prescribed under section 107 (4) of the CGST Act? 

Held

The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in WP(C) NO. 15574 of 2023 held as under:

  • Relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and others [(2008) 3 SCC 70] wherein the court held that since there is complete exclusion of section 5 of the Limitation Act, therefore the Commissioner and the High Court were justified in holding that there was no power to condone the delay after the expiry of 30 days period.
  • Held that, the CGST Act is a special statute and a self-contained code and impliedly excluded the application of the Limitation Act, 1963 and further construed that it is rudimentary that the provisions of a fiscal statute have to be strictly construed and interpreted. Thus, the Respondent is right in rejecting the time-barred appeal.
  • Dismissed the writ petition

Relevant Provisions

Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act

"Cancellation of registration

(1) …..

(2) The proper officer may cancel the registration of a person from such date, including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit, where,––
(a) …..
(b) …..
(c) any registered person, other than a person specified in clause (b), has not furnished returns for such continuous tax period as may be prescribed; or"

Section 107 of the CGST Act

"(1) …..
(2) …..
(3) …..
(4) The Appellate Authority may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of three months or six months, as the case may be, allow it to be presented within a further period of one month."

FAQ :

Generally, no. The Kerala High Court ruled that the CGST Act is a self-contained code and does not allow for appeals to be filed beyond the statutory time limits, even if there are delays.

Section 107(4) of the CGST Act allows for an appeal to be presented within a further period of one month if the appellant can show sufficient cause for the delay, but this is a strict limit.

No, the Kerala High Court held that the CGST Act, being a special statute, implicitly excludes the application of the Limitation Act, 1963.

The appeal was rejected because it was filed 209 days after the order was issued, which is significantly beyond the time limit prescribed by the CGST Act.

A self-contained statute provides all the necessary rules and mechanisms within itself, meaning external laws like the Limitation Act are not intended to apply unless explicitly stated.

 

Bimal Jain
Published in GST
Views : 382

Comments




CCI Pro



Company
29 July 2026
Audit Executive

RBSM Corporate Advisors Private Limited

Pune

CA

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 23 July 2026
Article

Gianender & Associates

New Delhi

CA Inter

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 14 July 2026
Article Assistants

R Shyam and Associates

New Delhi

CA Final

View Details
Company
31 July 2026
Senior Accountant - Bunia, Democratic Republic of Congo

AD GLOBAL LTD

Mumbai

B.Com

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 28 July 2026
Article/Intern/Semi-Qualified/Fresher B.Com

VNSS & Co

Mumbai

Others

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 11 July 2026
Article

SNCO

Mumbai

CA Inter

View Details
Company
28 July 2026
Senior accountant

RJ Public School

Bengaluru

B.Com

View Details
Company
Featured 16 July 2026
Semi Qualified Company Secretary

Vakilsearch.com

Chennai

CS

View Details
Follow