# M/s Yadav Steels, Pala Road, Aligarh U.P v. Addl. Commissioner - **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 184 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2024-02-15 - **Case number:** Writ Tax No. 975 of 2023 - **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-yadav-steels-pala-road-aligarh-u-p-v-addl-commissioner-51319 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote Taxation Law - U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 107 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Delay in Filing Appeal - Petitioner challenged appellate order dated 23.01.2023 dismissing appeal as time-barred (filed 66 days beyond limitation period) - Held, Section 107 of the Act, a self-contained code, prescribes a three-month limitation period for filing appeals, extendable by one month under Section 107(4) upon sufficient cause - No provision allows condonation beyond this fourmonth period, impliedly excluding Section 5 of Limitation Act - Supreme Court rulings in Singh Enterprises and Hongo India affirm exclusion of Section 5 in special statutes like GST Act - M/s Abhishek Trading Corporation and Garg Enterprises followed, reinforcing that GST Act's strict limitation ensures timely dispute resolution and fiscal stability - Calcutta High Court's S.K. Chakraborty & Sons judgment, suggesting Section 5 applicability, disregarded as contrary to Supreme Court precedents - Appeal filed beyond condonable period correctly dismissed - Writ petition meritless. (Para 4-12) Writ petition dismissed. List of Cases Cited: ## Text 184 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES part of the supplier to have populated the incorrect address is not far fetched, especially since the correct addresses were mentioned in all the eight invoices and the eight bilties. 9. From the above factual matrix, it does not appear that there was any intention whatsoever to evade tax. 10. The judgement in Pushpa Devi Jain (Supra) is in relation to an expired e-way bill and the factual matrix therein is distinguishable from the present case. The Kerla High Court's judgement in Carpenters Clasics India Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) is also on a completely different footing as there was no e-way bill provided at all. Accordingly, this judgement is of no help to the department. The judgement in Indus Towers Limited, Palarivatton (Supra) deals with the factual matrix where no declaration was uploaded on the site of the department, and accordingly, reasonable presumption of intention to evade tax was raised in that case. Therefore, this case is also distinguishable on the facts itself. 11. As held by this Court in umpteen cases, where penalty is being imposed under Section 129 of the Act an intention to evade tax should be present. Now, such an intention to evade tax may be presumed by the department in cases where there is wholesole disregard of the Rules. For example, in the event the goods are not accompanied by the invoice or the e-way bill is completely absent, a presumption may be raised that there is an intention to evade tax. Such a presumption of evasion of tax then becomes rebuttable by the materials to be provided by the owner/transporter of the goods. However, when most of the documents are accompanied with the goods and there are some typographical and/or clerical error, a presumption to evade tax does not arise. It is then upon the department to indicate that there was an intention to evade tax. 12. In the present case, it is palpably clear that the goods were accompanied with the relevant invoices, bilty documents and the e-way bills. It is to be noted that the invoices and bilty documents also contain the correct address of the destination and only four out of eight of the e-way bills had the incorrect address. Even this incorrect address was the registered office of the petitioner. In such a case, no presumption to evade tax arises at all. The mere technical error committed by the petitioner cannot result in imposition of such harsh penalty upon the petitioner. As quoted in the Arthashastra by Chanakya that 'Governments should collect taxes like a honeybee collects honey from a flower without disturbing its petals.' 13. In the light of the above, I am of the view that the penalty imposed in this particular case is without any basis in law, and accordingly, impugned penalty order dated February 14, 2020 and the order passed in appeal dated October 13, 2020 are quashed and set aside. 14. The writ petition is allowed. ---------- (2024) 2 ILRA 184 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.02.2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. Writ Tax No. 975 of 2023 M/s Yadav Steels, Pala Road, Aligarh U.P. ...Petitioner Versus Addl. Commissioner (Grade-2) State, Aligarh U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Suresh Chandra Pandey, Sri Saurabh Pandey Counsel for the Respondent: 2 All. M/s Yadav Steels, Pala Road, Aligarh U.P. Vs. Addl. Commissioner (Grade-2) State, Aligarh U.P. & Anr. 185 C.S.C. Taxation Law - U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 107 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Delay in Filing Appeal - Petitioner challenged appellate order dated 23.01.2023 dismissing appeal as time-barred (filed 66 days beyond limitation period) - Held, Section 107 of the Act, a self-contained code, prescribes a three-month limitation period for filing appeals, extendable by one month under Section 107(4) upon sufficient cause - No provision allows condonation beyond this fourmonth period, impliedly excluding Section 5 of Limitation Act - Supreme Court rulings in Singh Enterprises and Hongo India affirm exclusion of Section 5 in special statutes like GST Act - M/s Abhishek Trading Corporation and Garg Enterprises followed, reinforcing that GST Act's strict limitation ensures timely dispute resolution and fiscal stability - Calcutta High Court's S.K. Chakraborty & Sons judgment, suggesting Section 5 applicability, disregarded as contrary to Supreme Court precedents - Appeal filed beyond condonable period correctly dismissed - Writ petition meritless. (Para 4-12) Writ petition dismissed. List of Cases Cited: 1. Singh Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur; (2008) 3 SCC 70 2. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Vs Hongo India Pvt. Ltd.; (2009) 5 SCC 791 3. S.K. Chakraborty & Sons Vs U.O.I.; 2024T.L.D.-22-CAL 4. M/s Abhishek Trading Corporation Vs Commissioner (Appeals); Writ Tax No. 1394 of 2023, decided on 19.01.2024 Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC:9563) 5. Penuel Nexus Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Additional Commissioner Headquarters (Appeals); MANU/KE/3276/2023 6. Garg Enterprises Vs St. of U.P.; MANU/UP/0197/2024 (Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated January 23, 2023 passed under Section 107 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). By virtue of this order, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of limitation, as the same was filed approximately 66 days beyond the date of limitation. 3. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner has fairly submitted that the appeal under Section 107 of the Act was filed beyond time. However, counsel on behalf of the petitioner relies on a Division Bench judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of S.K. Chakraborty & sons vs. Union of India and others reported in 2024-T.L.D.-22-CAL to argue that Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Limitation Act') would be attracted as Section 107 of the Act does not expressly or impliedly exclude the attraction of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 4. This Court in M/s Abhishek Trading Corporation vs. Commissioner (Appeals) and another [(Writ Tax No.1394 of 2023, decided on 19.1.2024) Neutral Citation No. 2024: AHC: 9563], after relying on the Supreme Court judgments in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and others reported in (2008) 3 SCC 70 and Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India Private Limited and another 186 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES reported in (2009) 5 SCC 791 has categorically held as follows:- "7. The Central Goods and Services Act is a special statute and a selfcontained code by itself. Section 107 of the Act has an inbuilt mechanism and has impliedly excluded the application of the Limitation Act. It is trite law that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will apply only if it is extended to the special statute. Section 107 of the Act specifically provides for the limitation and in the absence of any clause condoning the delay by showing sufficient cause after the prescribed period, there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Accordingly, one cannot apply Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the aforesaid provision." 5. In Penuel Nexus Pvt. Ltd. -v- The Additional Commissioner Headquarters (Appeals) and Ors., reported in MANU/KE/3276/2023, the Kerala High Court held that the GST Act is a special statue and a self-contained code by itself and hence, Limitation Act will not apply. Relevant paragraph has been extracted below: "10. The Central Goods and Services Tax Act is a special statute and a self-contained code by itself. Section 107 has an inbuilt mechanism and has impliedly excluded the application of the Limitation Act. It is trite, that the Limitation Act will apply only if it is extended to the special statute. It is also rudimentary that the provisions of a fiscal statute have to be strictly construed and interpreted." 6. The aforementioned principle was reiterated by this Court in Garg Enterprises -v- State of U.P. and Ors, reported in MANU/UP/0197/2024. Relevant paragraph has been reproduced below: "7. The Central Goods and Services Act is a special statute and a selfcontained code by itself. Section 107 of the Act has an inbuilt mechanism and has impliedly excluded the application of the Limitation Act. It is trite law that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will apply only if it is extended to the special statute. Section 107 of the Act specifically provides for the limitation and in the absence of any clause condoning the delay by showing sufficient cause after the prescribed period, there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Accordingly, one cannot apply Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the aforesaid provision." 7. Upon a perusal of Section 107 of the Act, it is clear that the appellate authority can only allow extension of a period of one month as provided in sub section (4) of Section 107 of the Act. In the present case, the appeal was filed approximately 66 days subsequent to the expiry of one month that was condonable under Section 107(4) of the Act. To make it more clear, the period within which the appeal could have been filed was three months plus a period of one month. However, in the present case the appeal was filed beyond the period of four months, and therefore, the appellate authority could not have condoned the delay even if sufficient cause was made out. 8. The significance of limitations in taxing statues, such as the GST Act, cannot be overstated. These statutes govern the collection of taxes, which are vital for the functioning of a state or country. Limitation provisions ensure timely resolution of 2 All. M/s Bhole Baba Construction Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 187 disputes and promote efficiency and fairness in tax administration. Tax laws are complex and often subject to interpretation, leading to disputes between taxpayers and tax authorities. Limitation provides a framework within which such disputes must be resolved, thereby preventing undue delays and ensuring that tax liabilities are determined within a reasonable time frame. This is crucial for both taxpayers and tax authorities as it promotes legal certainty and facilitates effective tax compliance. 9. Section 107 of the GST Act prescribes a specific limitation period within which appeals against certain decisions must be filed. This limitation period is integral to the functioning of the appellate mechanism under the GST Act and reflects the legislative intent to expedite the resolution of tax disputes. By imposing a time limit on the filling of appeals, Section 107 aims to prevent undue delayed in the adjudication process and promote the efficient administration of the GST regime. On the other hand, Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides for the extension of prescribed periods in certain exceptional circumstances, such as when sufficient cause is shown for the delay. 10. In analyzing the conflicting interpretations concerning the exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act as far as Section 107 of the GST Act is concerned, it is essential to consider the rationale behind the exclusion of the Limitation Act in certain special statues, particularly in the context of taxation. Tax laws are often characterized by strict procedural requirements and time-bound deadlines, reflecting the need for expeditious resolution of tax disputes to ensure revenue certainty and fiscal stability. 11. The judgment rendered by the Calcutta High Court in the matter of S.K. Chakraborty & Sons (supra) fails to adequately consider the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Singh Enterprises (supra) and Hongo India (supra) and hence the said judgment is of no precedential value, and accordingly, the view expressed therein is not accepted by this Court. 12. Taxing statutes like the GST Act embody a comprehensive framework with specific limitation provisions tailored to expedite the resolution of tax-related matters. Section 107 of the GST Act, operates as a complete code in itself, explicitly delineating limitation periods for filing appeals and implicitly excluding the application of general limitation provisions such as Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 13. Accordingly, the present writ petition is without any merit and is dismissed. ---------- (2024) 2 ILRA 187 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.01.2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. Writ Tax No. 1272 of 2023 M/s Bhole Baba Construction ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Pranjal Shukla Counsel for the Respondent: C.S.C.