TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>HC rejects four-year delayed GST appeals under Section 107, finds no extraordinary circumstances to condone delay</h1> <h3>Baiju George Versus Commissioner of Goods And Service Taxes, Joint Commissioner, Goods And Service Tax Department, Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Goods And Service Tax Officer (Works Contract)</h3> The Kerala HC dismissed a writ petition seeking condonation of delay in filing appeals under CGST/SGST Acts. The petitioner filed appeals in February ... Condonation of delay in filing appeals against orders under CGST/SGST Acts - Whether the court can exercise jurisdiction under Art. 226 to permit the filing of appeals beyond the statutory time limit? - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has not made out any ground for grant of relief in this writ petition. Admittedly, the petitioner filed appeals against Ext.P.1 series of orders only in the month of February 2024 i.e., four years after the date on which the orders against which the appeal was sought to be filed had been issued. This Court cannot, normally, in the exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India extend the time limit for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Acts. This is clear from the law laid down in SINGH ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAMSHEDPUR [2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT]. The issue was considered in the context of Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 in KETAN V. PAREKH VERSUS SPECIAL DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND ANOTHER. [2011 (11) TMI 62 - SUPREME COURT] - The judgment in Ketan V. Parekh is also authority for the proposition that though Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 may not apply, the benefit of Section 14 of that Act can be extended in appropriate cases. It is only when the Court finds certain extraordinary circumstances that prevented the petitioner from filing an appeal within time, the Court will exercise such jurisdiction (in rare cases) and direct that the petitioner should be permitted to contest an appeal filed beyond the statutory time limit, on merits - there are no extraordinary circumstances in this case to grant similar relief to the petitioner. Though Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not fix any period of limitation for the filing of a writ petition, it is settled law that a writ petition can be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. As already observed the orders issued by the adjudicating authority were issued in the month of February 2020. This Writ Petition has been filed only in the year 2024. That is another reason to decline relief. The petitioner has failed to approach this Court within a reasonable time. The contention of the petitioner that he was sick and advised bed rest due to fatty liver disease has to be taken with a pinch of suspicion - the writ petition fails, and it is accordingly dismissed. Issues:Petitioner seeks relief for delay in filing appeals against orders under CGST/SGST Acts. Whether the court can exercise jurisdiction under Art. 226 to permit the filing of appeals beyond the statutory time limit. Whether the petitioner's reasons for delay are justified. Whether the judgment in Ketan V. Parekh case applies to the present case. Whether extraordinary circumstances exist to grant relief to the petitioner.Analysis:The petitioner sought relief for the delay in filing appeals against orders under the CGST/SGST Acts, citing health issues as the reason for the delay. The petitioner filed the appeals four years after the issuance of the orders, leading to a challenge regarding the timeliness of the appeal. The petitioner requested the court to exercise jurisdiction under Art. 226 to permit the filing of appeals beyond the statutory time limit, emphasizing the liberal consideration of applications for condonation of delay. The Government Pleader opposed the relief, highlighting the significant delay in filing the appeal and questioning the credibility of the medical certificate provided by the petitioner.The court referred to the judgment in Singh Enterprises v. CCE and Ors, emphasizing the limitations on extending time limits for filing appeals under the CGST/SGST Acts. Additionally, the court discussed the principles outlined in the Ketan V. Parekh case, where the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 could be extended in exceptional cases. The court noted that the exercise of jurisdiction to permit appeals filed beyond the statutory time limit is rare and requires extraordinary circumstances, as highlighted in previous judgments.The court considered the petitioner's argument in light of the observations made in the B.C. Chaturvedi case, emphasizing the power of courts to do complete justice in exceptional cases. In the present case, the court found no extraordinary circumstances warranting the grant of relief to the petitioner. The court also addressed the delay in filing the writ petition under Article 226, emphasizing the importance of timely approach to the court. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, citing the lack of extraordinary circumstances and the significant delay in seeking relief.In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the stringent approach towards extending time limits for filing appeals under the CGST/SGST Acts, emphasizing the need for exceptional circumstances to warrant such relief. The court's decision was guided by previous judgments and principles of law governing the condonation of delay in filing appeals.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
