Writ remedy and limitation under GST: bona fide rectification time can be excluded before treating an appeal as time-barred.

Availability of an alternative statutory appeal under the CGST Act does not bar writ jurisdiction under Article 226 where the challenge raises a pure question of law, jurisdictional error, patent illegality, or denial of natural justice; the writ petition was entertainable. In a special limitation regime under Section 107, the outer statutory limit for condonation cannot be enlarged by Section 5 of the Limitation Act, but the time spent in a bona fide rectification proceeding may be excluded on the principle underlying Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The rectification period was excluded, the appeal was not to be treated as time-barred on those facts, and an opportunity to seek condonation of delay had to be afforded before dismissal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable and entertainable despite the availability of the statutory appellate remedy under the CGST Act. (ii) Whether the time spent in pursuing the rectification application under Section 161 of the CGST Act was liable to be excluded while computing limitation for filing the appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, and whether the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity to seek condonation of delay before dismissal of the appeal as time-barred.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable and entertainable despite the availability of the statutory appellate remedy under the CGST Act.

Analysis: The availability of an alternative statutory remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ court may still interfere where the challenge raises a pure question of law, patent illegality, jurisdictional error, or denial of natural justice. The petition was examined in the context of limitation and the legality of dismissal of the appeal, and was not treated as a routine challenge to the merits of the original adjudication.

Conclusion: The writ petition was entertainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the time spent in pursuing the rectification application under Section 161 of the CGST Act was liable to be excluded while computing limitation for filing the appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, and whether the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity to seek condonation of delay before dismissal of the appeal as time-barred.

Analysis: Section 107 of the CGST Act prescribes a special limitation period with a further one-month extension on sufficient cause, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not enlarge that period beyond the statutory outer limit. However, the principle underlying Section 14 of the Limitation Act applies where a prior proceeding was prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith and ultimately proved abortive. The rectification application was filed within the time permitted by Section 161 of the CGST Act and was pursued bona fide. Excluding that period, the appeal fell within the extended limitation period. Even otherwise, a party presenting an appeal within the extended period ought to be given at least one opportunity to explain the delay before the appeal is dismissed as time-barred.

Conclusion: The time spent in the rectification proceeding was required to be excluded, the appeal could not be rejected as time-barred on the facts of the case, and the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity to seek condonation of delay.

Final Conclusion: The impugned appellate order rejecting the appeal as time-barred was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration after affording the petitioner an opportunity to apply for condonation of delay.

Ratio Decidendi: In a special limitation regime, the statutory bar on condonation beyond the prescribed outer limit does not preclude exclusion of time under the principle underlying Section 14 of the Limitation Act where a prior proceeding was pursued with due diligence and in good faith; further, an appeal filed within the extendable period should not be dismissed for want of a condonation application without first affording an opportunity to explain the delay.

---