Statutory limitation on condonation of delay bars entertainment of a time-barred appeal under sales tax law.

An appellate authority cannot be directed to entertain an appeal filed beyond the statutory period and beyond the maximum condonable delay under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. Once the appeal under section 20 was filed after 30 days and also outside the 180-day outer limit for condonation, the authority had no jurisdiction to hear it on merits. A writ of mandamus cannot compel a statutory authority to act contrary to express legislative limits, and supervisory jurisdiction under article 227 cannot override the statute. The existence of a further appeal under section 22 did not remove the bar. The HC declined interference and rejected the request to entertain the time-barred appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should direct the appellate authority to entertain an appeal filed beyond the statutory period and beyond the maximum condonable delay under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Analysis: The appeal under section 20 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 had been filed after the prescribed 30 days and also beyond the outer limit of 180 days within which delay could be condoned. Once that statutory ceiling was crossed, the appellate authority had no power to entertain the appeal on merits. A writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel a statutory authority to act contrary to the statute, and supervisory jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution of India is meant to keep authorities within legal bounds, not to override express legislative limitations. The availability of a further statutory appeal under section 22 did not justify ignoring the bar under section 20.

Conclusion: The request to direct entertainment of the time-barred appeal was rejected and no interference was warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court cannot compel a statutory appellate authority to entertain an appeal in violation of an express statutory limitation on condonation of delay.

---