TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Challenging Assessment Orders beyond Limitation Period: Court Emphasizes Adherence to Statutory Timelines</h1> The court held that filing writ petitions challenging assessment orders long after the statutory limitation period without pursuing belated appeals is not ... Maintainability of writ petition - Time-barred petition – option to file appeal in front of Appellate Authority present – Jurisdiction of writ court - Held That:- Decision in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bhailal Bhai [1964 (1) TMI 33 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] followed - Section 47 of the Puducherry Value Added Tax 2007 provides that appeal shall be filed within a period of thirty days – Proviso u/s 47(1) gives extra time of thirty days if there is sufficient cause to explain the delay - Therefore a total period of sixty days is prescribed under the statute to file an appeal - If the appellate authority do not have the power to condone the delay after sixty days, the writ Court would not be justified in giving further extension - Writ proceedings are not for the purpose of granting extension of time – Although there is no fixed period of limitation for initiating proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - But when there is a statutory remedy available alongwith maximum period of limitation – No need to entertain a writ petition long after the expiry of the limitation - Appellants open to re-present the belated appeals filed before the Appellate Authority – Decided against assessee Issues:Whether writ petitions filed after the expiry of the statutory period prescribed for challenging the assessment orders are maintainable.Analysis:The petitioner, a petroleum dealer in Puducherry, failed to submit objections within the prescribed period after the assessing authority issued notices proposing assessment orders for the years 2006-2007 to 2009-2010. The petitioner belatedly filed statutory appeals challenging the assessment orders without applying to condone the delay, resulting in the appeals being returned. Subsequently, the petitioner filed writ petitions challenging the assessment orders after a significant delay of two to four years.The core issue is whether the petitioner can file writ petitions long after the statutory limitation period for challenging assessment orders without pursuing the belated appeals filed before the appellate authority. The statutory provision under Section 47 of the Puducherry Value Added Tax 2007 mandates that appeals should be filed within thirty days, with a provision for an additional thirty days in case of sufficient cause for delay, totaling sixty days for filing an appeal.The petitioner's appeals were significantly delayed, filed after the outer time limit for each assessment year without any application to condone the delay. The delay led to the appellate authority returning the appeals, prompting the petitioner to file writ petitions seeking to extend the period. However, the court emphasized that writ proceedings are not meant for granting extensions of time and highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory limitations to ensure finality in legal proceedings.The court reiterated that the law of limitation is based on public policy and aims to regulate the right of appeal by imposing conditions, emphasizing the need to show sufficient cause for extending the period. While there is no fixed period of limitation for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the court noted that in cases involving statutory remedies with prescribed limitation periods, filing writ petitions long after the expiry of such limits would defeat the purpose of statutory regulations.Referring to the Supreme Court's stance on laches in filing writ petitions, the court cited the importance of considering the maximum period fixed by the legislature as a reasonable standard for measuring delay in seeking remedies under Article 226. The court concluded that in cases like the present one, where statutory remedies with specific limitation periods exist, it is not justifiable to entertain writ petitions filed long after the statutory limits, emphasizing the need for timely legal actions to ensure the resolution of disputes within a reasonable timeframe.In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petitions, advising the petitioner to re-present the appeals after addressing the deficiencies pointed out by the appellate authority. The court clarified that its decision should not hinder the appellate authority from considering the petitioner's issues on merits if the delay is condoned, highlighting the importance of adhering to statutory limitations in legal proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
