https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784240 The dominant issue was whether the HC, in exercise of Article 226, could set aside the appellate authority's rejection of a statutory appeal as time-barred and direct acceptance beyond the maximum condonable period. Relying on SC precedent, the HC held that where the statute prescribes an outer limit for condonation, neither the appellate authority nor the HC can extend time by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act or writ jurisdiction, since Article 226 cannot be used to override substantive statutory limitation. A further issue was whether the HC could examine the order-in-original after the party elected the statutory appellate remedy; it held it could not, absent jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice. The petition was dismissed. en-us Wed, 24 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Dec 2025 09:17:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784240 The dominant issue was whether the HC, in exercise of Article 226, could set aside the appellate authority's rejection of a statutory appeal as time-barred and direct acceptance beyond the maximum condonable period. Relying on SC precedent, the HC held that where the statute prescribes an outer limit for condonation, neither the appellate authority nor the HC can extend time by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act or writ jurisdiction, since Article 226 cannot be used to override substantive statutory limitation. A further issue was whether the HC could examine the order-in-original after the party elected the statutory appellate remedy; it held it could not, absent jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice. The petition was dismissed. Case-Laws GST Wed, 24 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784240