Wp(C) No.1413/2024 vs Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir ... on 13 August, 2024

Outcome**
The High Court dismissed all the writ petitions. It held that the Appellate Authority under the J&K GST Act, 2017, could not condone delays beyond the statutory four-month period. Furthermore, the High Court found no "exceptional circumstances" in any of the petitioners' cases to warrant the exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to condone the delays.

2. Core Issue
Whether the Appellate Authority under Subsection (4) of Section 107 of the Jammu & Kashmir Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the Act of 2017), is competent to condone the delay in filing an appeal beyond a period of one month after the expiry of the three months' period prescribed for filing an appeal under Subsection (1) of Section 107 of the Act of 2017.

3. Key Facts
* The petitioners are dealers registered under the J&K GST Act, 2017.
* They were assessed by adjudicating authorities under Section 73/74 of the Act, leading to tax demands.
* They filed statutory appeals before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Act.
* The Appellate Authority rejected these appeals, citing "delay in submission of appeals."
* As an Appellate Tribunal is yet to be constituted, the petitioners invoked the High Court's extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
* The appeals were filed significantly beyond the prescribed statutory period, even after accounting for the one-month condonation period allowed to the Appellate Authority.

4. Arguments
* Taxpayer (Petitioners):
* In the absence of a specific exclusion, Section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963, would apply.
* Therefore, the Appellate Authority should be able to condone delays beyond the period specified in Section 107(4) of the J&K GST Act by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
* Even if the Appellate Authority lacks such power, the High Court, in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, can condone the delay in exceptional cases to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
* Revenue (Respondents):
* Section 107(1) of the J&K GST Act provides a strict three-month limitation period for appeals.
* Section 107(4) explicitly limits the Appellate Authority's power to condone delay to a further period of one month only, making the total permissible period four months.
* This specific statutory provision constitutes an "express exclusion" of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as per Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act.
* Therefore, the appeals filed beyond this cumulative four-month period were time-barred, and the Appellate Authority was correct in rejecting them.
* While acknowledging the High Court's Article 226 power, the respondents contended that the petitioners in the present cases had not demonstrated "exceptional circumstances" warranting such intervention.

5. Court’s Reasoning
* Interpretation of J&K GST Act, 2017: The Court held that Section 107 of the J&K GST Act is a complete code in itself. Section 107(1) provides a three-month period for filing appeals, and Section 107(4) restricts the Appellate Authority's power to condone delay to a maximum "further period of one month." This explicit limitation clearly indicates legislative intent to cap the total appeal period at four months.
* Applicability of Limitation Act, 1963: Relying on Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, the Court reasoned that where a special law (like the J&K GST Act) prescribes a specific period of limitation and explicitly limits the power of delay condonation (as in Section 107(4)), it "expressly excludes" the applicability of general provisions like Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
* Analysis of Precedents:
* The Court extensively cited and followed Supreme Court judgments in Singh Enterprise v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur (2008) and Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India (P) Ltd. (2009), which interpreted similar provisions in the Central Excise Act, 1944. These cases established that specific statutory provisions limiting delay condonation exclude the general applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
* It also referred to M/s Bengal Chemists and Druggists Association v. Kalyan Choudhary (2018), affirming that such limited condonation periods are "peremptory in nature."
* The Court distinguished Superintending Engineer/Dehar Power House Circle Bakhra Beas Management Board and another v. Excise and Taxation Officer (2019), noting that the Himachal Pradesh VAT Act provision in that case allowed for "such more extended period, as the Appellate Authority may allow," which was a broader power not present in Section 107(4) of the J&K GST Act.
* It dismissed the reliance on S.K.Chakrobarty v. Union of India (Calcutta High Court) as not laying down the correct legal position in light of the settled Supreme Court jurisprudence.
* High Court's Article 226 Jurisdiction: The Court acknowledged its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is not absolute and can be exercised to condone delay even against statutory prohibitions, but only in "exceptional circumstances" to prevent "gross injustice." However, it cautioned against exercising this power "on the drop of a hat," as it would render statutory limitations otiose.
* Application to Individual Cases: The Court reviewed each of the twelve petitions, detailing the specific delays (ranging from a few days beyond the four-month period to several months) and the reasons provided by the petitioners (e.g., ill health, accountant's fault, lack of knowledge of order until bank account seizure, father's medical condition, Covid-19 lockdown, communication gap, personal health issues, death in family). In each case, the Court found the explanations to be either unsubstantiated, vague, or indicative of negligence/remissness, and not amounting to the "exceptional circumstances" required to invoke its Article 226 jurisdiction to override the statutory bar on condonation of delay.

6. Statutory References
* Jammu & Kashmir Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Sections 73, 74, 107(1), 107(4))
* Central Goods and Services Tax Act
* Limitation Act, 1963 (Sections 3, 4, 5, 24, 29, 29(2))
* Constitution of India (Article 226)
* Central Excise Act, 1944 (Sections 35, 35B, 35EE, 35G, 35H(1))
* Companies Act, 2013 (Section 421(3))
* Electricity Act, 2003 (Section 125)
* Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Section 25)
* Indian Easements Act, 1882 (Section 2)
* Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (Sections 45, 48)

7. Precedents Cited
* Singh Enterprise v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, (2008) 3 SCC 70
* Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India (P) Ltd. (2009) 5 SCC 791
* M/s Bengal Chemists and Druggists Association v. Kalyan Choudhary, (2018) 3 SCC 41
* Chhattisgarh SEB v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, 2010 (5) SCC 23
* ONGC v. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited, 2017 (5) SCC 42
* Superintending Engineer/Dehar Power House Circle Bakhra Beas Management Board and another v. Excise and Taxation Officer, AIR ONLINE 2019 SC 1380 (distinguished)
* S.K.Chakrobarty v. Union of India (Calcutta High Court) (not followed)