Case Details
-
Case Title: M/s Farhat Construction v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
-
Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur
-
Petition No.: WPT No. 285 of 2022
-
Category of Dispute: Limitation in filing GST Appeal
-
Date of Judgment: 02.05.2023
-
Relevant Sections: Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017; Applicability of Limitation Act; SC orders in Suo Motu Writ (C) No. 3/2020 (extension of limitation during Covid-19)
Facts (Paras 2–4)
M/s Farhat Construction, a registered GST entity, was assessed for short payment of GST amounting to ₹16,04,845 (CGST and SGST). The adjudicating authority on 28–29.01.2021 issued demand of ₹33,66,672 under DRC-07. The assessee filed appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, but the Appellate Authority rejected it on 10.11.2022 as time-barred by 536 days. The petitioner argued that Supreme Court’s order dated 10.01.2022 in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation directed exclusion of 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, and therefore the delay computation was wrong. Reliance was placed on Orissa HC (Shree Udyog, 2021) and Calcutta HC (Kajal Dutta, 2023), contending that Covid-19 and illness caused delay.
Questions (Paras 3–5)
-
Whether the appeal filed on 07.10.2022 could be considered within limitation after applying the Supreme Court’s Covid-19 exclusion orders?
-
Whether the Appellate Authority had jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the period prescribed under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act?
-
Whether Covid-19 hardships justified further condonation beyond statutory limits?
Observations (Paras 7–13)
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s orders excluding the period 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 and granting a 90-day limitation period from 01.03.2022. Thus, the extended limitation expired on 30–31.05.2022, with a further condonable one month under Section 107(4) extending up to June 2022. The petitioner filed appeal only on 07.10.2022. The Court noted absence of pleadings explaining why the order could not be challenged earlier. Relying on Nandan Steels & Power Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh (2022), the Court reaffirmed that GST is a complete code, and the Limitation Act cannot override the strict statutory timelines. The reliance on Shree Udyog was distinguished as in that case the appeal was within limitation, but only the certified copy was delayed.
Judgment (Paras 12–14)
The Court held that even after excluding the Covid-19 period, the petitioner’s appeal remained beyond the statutory and extended limitation. Since the Appellate Authority lacked jurisdiction to condone delay beyond one month under Section 107(4), the writ petition had no merit. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Table of Earlier Cases Referred
| Case | Court | Citation | Verdict / Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation | Supreme Court | SMW (C) No. 3/2020, MA No. 21/2022 | Period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 excluded from limitation; 90-day window from 01.03.2022. |
| Nandan Steels & Power Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh | Chhattisgarh HC (DB) | W.A. No. 104/2021, decided 10.08.2022 | GST Act is complete code; Limitation Act excluded; delay beyond 1 month cannot be condoned. |
| Shree Udyog v. CST Odisha | Orissa HC | W.P.(C) No. 14887/2021 | Appeal filed within limitation; copy delayed due to Covid; delay condoned. |
| Kajal Dutta v. Asst. Commissioner of State Tax | Calcutta HC | M.A.T. No. 1924/2022 | Delay during Covid-19 considered; condonation allowed. |
| Singh Enterprises v. CCE | Supreme Court | (2008) 3 SCC 70 | Authorities cannot condone delay beyond statutory limit. |
| Commissioner v. Hongo India Pvt. Ltd. | Supreme Court | (2009) 5 SCC 791 | Limitation Act excluded when special law provides complete code. |
Between Fine Lines
For businesses, this judgment underscores that GST appeals must be filed strictly within the timelines prescribed under Section 107. Even Covid-19 relaxations extended only up to May–June 2022. Filing beyond that period cannot be saved, and the Limitation Act cannot be invoked to seek condonation. Companies should monitor orders closely and avoid delays in obtaining certified copies to preserve their appellate rights.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
