These petitions arise in common background. They have been heard together and would be disposed of by this common order. Since on all material aspects facts are similar, we may refer to those arising in W.P(C) No.380 of 2021.

[2] The petitioner has challenged an order dated 24.11.2020 passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax, Government of Tripura by which the petitioner’s appeal against an order of assessment was dismissed on the ground of delay. The record would show that the order of assessment was passed by the Superintendent of State Taxes on 03.06.2020. The petitioner had filed appeal on 03.11.2020 which was held to be beyond limitation.

[3] Section 107 of the Tripura State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (TSGST Act, 2017 for short) pertains to appeal to appellate authority. Sub Section (1) of Section 107 permits an aggrieved person by an order passed under the Act by the adjudicating authority to prefer appeal before the appellate authority within three months from the date on which the said order is communicated to him. Sub Section (4) of Section 107 provides that the appellate authority if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the said period, allow it to be presented within a further period of one month. Thus in terms of Section 107 of the TSGST Act, an appeal against order of assessment can be presented within three months which can be extended by a maximum period of one month. Under the circumstances, the appellate authority would have no power to condone the delay beyond one month. However, the situation in the present case is superseded by the unprecedented situation created by the spread of coronavirus in the country. Not only in statutory schemes such as the present one, in large number of other situations, the litigants would face extreme hardship where the expiry of limitation would terminate the remedies forever. On the other hand, the corona related restrictions and lock downs made it extremely difficult if not impossible, for the aggrieved litigants to approach different courts and forums for asserting their rights. Taking cognizance of such situation, the Supreme Court in exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution passed orders from time to time waving the limitation provisions and suspending the period from consideration for limitation during which the corona restrictions were prevailing. First such order was passed on 23rd March, 2020, coinciding with extremely strict nationwide lockdown announced by the Government of India. In this order, the Supreme Court provided that the period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed by the general law or special law whether condonable or not shall stand extended with effect from 15th March, 2020 till further orders to be passed by the Court. It is not necessary to take note of further orders passed by the Supreme Court in this regard. Sufficient to refer to an order dated 08.03.2021 in which the Supreme Court has provided as under:

“2. We have considered the suggestions of the learned Attorney General for India regarding the future course of action. We deem it appropriate to issue the following directions: –

1. In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2020, if any, shall become available with effect from 15.03.2021.

2. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 15.03.2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 15.03.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.

3. The period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the 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.

4. The Government of India shall amend the guidelines for containment zones, to state. “Regulated movement will be allowed for medical emergencies, provision of essential goods and services, and other necessary functions, such as, time bound applications, including for legal purposes, and educational and job-related requirements.”

3. The Suo Motu Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.”

 [4] As per this order thus in computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand excluded and balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2020 shall become available with effect from 15.03.2021. In other words, the effect of this order was that the entire time lapsed between 15.03.2020 to 15.03.2021 in pursuing any legal proceeding, would be ignored for the purpose of limitation.

[5] In the present case, as noted, the Assessing Officer had passed the order of assessment on 03.06.2020 against which the petitioner preferred appeal on 03.11.2020. Both these events namely, the order of assessment which the petitioner had challenged and the presentation of appeal against such order fell within the immunity period provided by the Supreme Court in the said order i.e. the period between 15.03.2020 to 15.03.2021. There was thus no delay at the hands of the petitioner in preferring the appeal. As noted, facts in other cases are similar. The crucial dates of order of assessment and petitioner preferring appeal are identical and fall within the immunity period provided by the Supreme Court.

[6] Under the circumstances, the petitions are disposed of by quashing the respective orders passed by the appellate Commissioner rejecting the petitioner’s appeals on the ground of delay. Resultantly, all the appeals shall be examined on merits and disposed of in accordance with law.

[7] Petitions disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.