Writ jurisdiction and pandemic delay allowed interference with a time-barred GST appeal and restoration for fresh adjudication.

An appeal filed beyond the prescribed limitation under the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was rejected because section 107 does not permit enlargement of time. The High Court nevertheless interfered in writ jurisdiction, noting that the delay occurred during the pandemic period and that a litigant should not be left without any remedy. It applied the principle that certiorari may remain available even after loss of the statutory right of appeal, and treated the case as fit for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction. The delay-based rejection was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the petitioner's appeal as time-barred under the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction, and whether the petitioner could be left remediless despite the appellate delay.

Analysis: The appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period and section 107 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 did not provide for enlargement of time. However, the Court noted that the impugned order had been passed during the pandemic period, and that a litigant should not be rendered without any remedy. The Court relied on the principle that certiorari may still be available even after loss of the statutory right of appeal, and treated the situation as warranting exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The delay-based rejection was interfered with, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The writ petition succeeded.

---