TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 273
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....GST Act, 2017 has been dismissed on the ground of barred by limitation. 2. The facts of the case is that the respondents herein vide his order dated 15.10.2018 has imposed a penalty invoking the provisions of Section 129(1)(b) of the GST Act, 2017. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 107 of the aforesaid Act of 2017 on 21.05.2019. It is this appeal which has been rejected on the ground of limitation. 3. For dealing with the issue it would be relevant at this juncture to first quote the relevant provisions of the appeal and the period of limitation prescribed therein. For ready reference Sub-section (1) and (4) reads as under:- "129. Detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyances in transit. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) xxxxxx (4) No tax, interest or penalty shall be determined under subsection (3) without giving the person concerned an opportunity of being heard." 4. From the plain reading of the aforesaid two provisions, it clearly reflects that the Appellate Authority has been given the power to condone the delay of only one month i.e. 30 days and not beyond that. Thus, from the plain reading of the provisions it clearly establishes the fact that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act would not be governing the field in view of the specific period of limitation and the period for condonation of delay being provided. The original order was dated 15.10.2018. The appeal had to be filed within three months i.e. by 15.01.2019. If for s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....permissible period provided under the statutes. That disallowing the contention and dismissing the appeal the Supreme Court observed that once when the period is prescribed, beyond the said period the authority does not have the power to entertain the application for condoning the delay or else it will defeat the statutory purpose. 7. A similar view has further been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors. -Versus- Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited. Wherein again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court taking the same stand that beyond the stipulated period, the Appellate Authority could not have condoned the delay even if certain extraordinary situation is given seeking condonatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing or crossing the limits of jurisdiction including in flagrant disregard of law and rules of procedure or in violation of principles of natural justice, where no procedure is specified. The High Court may accede to such a challenge and can also non-suit the petitioner on the ground that alternative efficacious remedy is available and that be invoked by the writ petitioner. However, if the writ petitioner choses to approach the High Court after expiry of the maximum limitation period of 60 days prescribed under Section 31 of the 2005 Act, the High Court cannot disregard the statutory period for redressal of the grievance and entertain the writ petition of such a party as a matter of course. Doing so would be in the teeth of the principle....