TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 175
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... time provided under the Act for filing of a statutory appeal. The provisions of Section 51 of the Act provide for the filing of a first appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) within a period of 60 days from date of receipt of an order of assessment, with a further period of 30 days provided, during which the concerned assessee may seek condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. If the appellate authority is so convinced of the reasons adduced for the delay, he is, at his discretion, entitled to condone such delay, upto only a period of 30 days. To clarify, the present Writ Petitions challenge orders of assessment, and have been filed beyond the period of 90 (60 + 30) days provided in terms of Section 51 of the Act from the date of receipt of the orders by the petitioners. 2. In W.P.Nos.15679 and 15683 of 2020, orders of assessment have been passed on 19.03.2019 (W.P.No.15679 of 2020) and 22.03.2019 (W.P.No.15683 of 2020), served upon the petitioners on 13.03.2020 and appeals ought to have been filed on or before 12.06.2020. The Writ Petitions have been filed on 23.10.2020. In WP.No.17833, 17838, 17840 and 17844 of 2020, the date o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the petitioner. When action for recovery was initiated by the Commercial Taxes Department, the petitioner made an attempt to contact STP and came to know from his son that he had passed away. The papers were obtained from his son and entrusted to another STP on 14.10.2020. The appeal was proposed to be filed seeking condonation of delay. Unfortunately, the second practitioner had met with an accident on 25.02.2020 and had been admitted in the hospital till 24.03.2020 for treatment, by which time, lock-down had been announced by the Government to contain the spread of the COVID- 19 pandemic. It was only on 14.10.2020 that, the petitioner was able to coordinate with the STP, execute the appeal papers and filed the same before the second respondent, which were returned on the ground that there was no power for condonation of delay of 236 days. The Writ Petition was filed on 01.12.2020. In the light of explanation offered by the petitioner, the delay in filing of the Writ Petition is justified and has been fully explained. 7. In all the above cases, no dispute has been raised by the revenue counsel in regard to the individual facts as well as dates and the sequence of events set ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that was dismissed on 25.10.2018 as being barred by limitation and also since sufficient cause had not been made out for condonation of the delay. 14. A writ petition was filed challenging the order of assessment (there was no challenge to the appellate order). This writ petition was entertained by the High Court noticing that statutory pre-deposit had been effected and the employee in charge of tax matters had been dismissed leading to the delay in filing of appeal. That petitioner was put to terms. Upon compliance with the terms imposed, the matter was heard and the writ petition came to be allowed quashing the order of assessment and relegating the matter to the assessing authority to be redone afresh after hearing the petitioner. It is thus that the revenue carried the matter in appeal to the Supreme Court arguing that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction and committed a manifest error in admitting a writ petition beyond the period of limitation set out in the concerned statute. A plethora of case law on this issue was examined by the Supreme Court. 15. The cases discussed are, Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.)); K.S. Rash....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ope of jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 cannot be curtailed by the limitation prescribed under an statute. Thus while challenges to assessment may be considered on several grounds such as, the order having been passed by an Officer without jurisdiction, in flagrant disregard of law or procedure, the violation of principles of natural justice or the bar of limitation, if the petitioner has missed the bus, as regards the statutory limitation prescribed under the statute, such a challenge cannot be entertained by the High Court 'as a matter of course'. 19. The wide powers with which the High Court is invested must not be exercised in such a way that are inconsistent with legislative intent prescribing a rigid limitation under statute. In conclusion, the Bench reverses the decision of the High Court and allows the writ appeals saying that no case have been made out either before the High Court, and no finding has been recorded by the High Court in regard to its decision for entertaining the writ petition beyond the period of statutory limitation. 20. Article 226 of the Constitution of India is thus, elastic enough to accommodate challenges to proceedings beyond the period p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent Writ Petitions have been filed on 04.08.2020 with a delay of 367 days. The reason adduced is that the assessing officer was approached seeking rectification of the order of assessment. He had promised to look into the matter after seeking the advice of his superiors, but had informed the petitioner belatedly of his inability to help the petitioners. Though no documentation is available in support of this submission of the petitioners, the assessing authority in counter (para-7) fairly accepts the position that an oral request had been made by the petitioner for revision of assessment. He however denies that the petitioners were told to await a confirmation from him in this regard. 25. Even proceeding on the basis that such a request had been made before the officer, there is no justification for the petitioner to have tarried for 367 days for this purpose. The petitioner is not a small dealer, but a limited company with personnel and protocols in place for management of its finances and tax affairs. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition has itself been filed by the Manager (Tax). In such circumstances, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have been vigilant ....