Govt must consider extension of expiry dates under provisions

Last Monday, the Supreme Court directed that the period from 15th March 2020 to 28th March 2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings and that the balance period of limitation, if any, shall be reckoned from 1st March 2022. The government must take note and consider suitable extensions for other expiry dates prescribed under various provisions.

In March 2020, the Supreme Court took suo-motu cognizance of the Covid-19 pandemic and extended the period of limitation for judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings from 15th March 2020 until further orders. In March 2021, the Court restricted the extension up to 14th March 2021, as the pandemic had abated. In September 2021, the Court again took note of the situation caused by the second wave of the pandemic and extended the period of limitation till 2nd October 2021. Now the Court has again extended the relaxation till end February 2022 due to the disruptions caused by the third wave of the pandemic. 

The order of the Supreme Court says that in cases where the period of limitation expires between 15th March 2020 and 28th February 2022, a period of 90 days from 1st March 2022 shall be granted to all persons. However, if the actual balance of limitation periods as on 1st March 2022 are greater than 90 days, such longer periods would be available from 1st March 2022. The time period from 15th March 2020 till 28th February 2022 shall also be excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.

The Supreme Court, in all its orders, has dealt only with periods of limitation in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings (including filing of appeals, etc.) and not for any other compliance under various legislations. However, in the case of Vodafone Essar Ltd. Vs. Dispute Resolution Panel [2012] 340 ITR 352 (Del)], the Delhi High Court gave the benefit of the Supreme Court order to the petitioner. In the case of GNC Infra LLP Vs. Assistant Commissioner of GST [2021(110) TMI 973], the Madras High Court gave the benefit of the Supreme Court directions to the petitioner, in a matter involving delay in filing the refund application under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. Recently, the Bombay High Court also, in the case of Saiher Supply Chain Consulting Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise [Writ Petition (L.) no. 1275 of 2021], on the basis of the Supreme Court order, directed the authorities to consider a refund application under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, earlier rejected as time barred.

During the first and second waves of the pandemic, the government extended many deadlines for filing various applications and even the expiry dates of import licenses and export obligation periods.  The government should now take note of the latest directive from the Supreme Court and issue necessary notifications or circulars making clear the position regarding the applicability of the Supreme Court order to various administrative/statutory provisions.