Appeal Rejected as Time-Barred: Court Affirms No Jurisdiction Under Article 226 for Late Petitions.

The HC dismissed the Writ Petition, affirming the Second Respondent's decision to reject the time-barred appeal under the Finance Act, 1994. Citing the SC's precedent, the HC held that it lacked jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain the petition, as the appeal was filed beyond the statutory limitation period. Consequently, associated Miscellaneous Petitions were closed without costs.

---

---

Issues:
- Appeal against the order passed by the First Respondent
- Entertaining a time-barred appeal by the Second Respondent
- Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Analysis:
1. The petitioner received an order under the Finance Act, 1994 from the First Respondent on 21.12.2016 and was required to file an appeal within two months. However, the appeal was presented to the Second Respondent on 19.04.2017, beyond the permissible three-month period. The Second Respondent refused to entertain the time-barred appeal, leading to the filing of a Writ Petition challenging this decision.

2. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada -vs- Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, the High Court emphasized that Writ Petitions should not be entertained if the order by a Statutory Authority was not appealed within the prescribed limitation period before the Appellate Authority. Consequently, the High Court could not entertain the Writ Petition challenging the Second Respondent's decision to reject the time-barred appeal.

3. Given the legal position established by the Supreme Court, the High Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The Court dismissed the Writ Petition, stating that it was not feasible to review the controversy due to the appeal's time-barred nature. As a result, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed, and no costs were imposed on either party.

---