Limitation for statutory appeal cannot be bypassed in writ jurisdiction without a credible explanation for delay.

A statutory appeal filed about eight months late was not entertained because the delay was not supported by a legally sustainable explanation. The order had been served on the driver, the amount was deposited the same day, and the goods were released, while the appeal papers and delay application did not substantiate the plea that the demand order was unavailable on the departmental portal or that the offline appeal mechanism was unknown. The Court held that writ jurisdiction should not be used to bypass the prescribed limitation period where the statutory scheme applies, and noted that the assessee could pursue the appellate remedy when the tribunal becomes functional.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the appeal as time barred called for interference in writ jurisdiction, and whether the petitioner was entitled to condonation of delay on the ground that the demand order was not reflected on the departmental portal and the appeal mechanism was allegedly not known.

Analysis: The demand and penalty were imposed after interception of goods in transit and the order was served on the driver, with the amount deposited on the same day and the goods released. The appeal before the first appellate authority was filed after about eight months. The Court found no specific plea in the appeal papers or delay condonation application showing lack of knowledge of the offline filing facility, and also noted that the memo of appeal recorded communication of the order on the same date. In the absence of a substantiated explanation for the delay, and in view of the statutory scheme governing limitation, no indulgence could be granted in writ jurisdiction. The Court also referred to the Central Goods and Services Tax (Ninth Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019 and the absence of the appellate tribunal, to note that the assessee could avail the statutory remedy when the tribunal becomes functional.

Conclusion: The challenge to the rejection of the appeal on limitation failed, and the writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner was, however, left free to pursue the appeal remedy before the tribunal when available.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory appeal cannot be entertained beyond the prescribed limitation period in the absence of a legally sustainable explanation for delay, and writ jurisdiction will not ordinarily be used to override that limitation where an alternative statutory remedy remains available.

---