TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 134
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m bearing GSTIN No.09AYHPT5589J1ZF; (iii). ......... (iv). .........." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner firm is engaged in the business of providing security services to various educational institutions and other industrial and institutional facilities at Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad as well also engaged in providing canteen services to renowned educational institute namely, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Ghaziabad. He further submits that as the petitioner's firm was duly registered under the UPGST Act, 2017, bearing GSTIN No.09AYHPT5589J1ZF. He further submits that the show cause notice was received to the petitioner belatedly therefore he could not reply to the same and thereafter, the cancellation of registration dated 22.03.2022 was passed. He further submits that having gained knowledge about the said order, petitioner filed an appeal, but the same has also been rejected vide order dated 21.05.2024 without considering the material available on record. 4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has supported the impugned order and submits that the impugned orders have rightly been passed as the appeal was preferred beyond the period of li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fter the expiry of 60 days which is the normal period for preferring appeal. Therefore, there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Commissioner and the High Court were therefore justified in holding that there was no power to condone the delay after the expiry of 30 days' period." 9. Further, the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited [2020 (36) GSTL 305 (SC)] has held as under:- "11. In the backdrop of these facts, the central question is: whether the High Court ought to have entertained the writ petition filed by the respondent? As regards the power of the High Court to issue directions, orders or writs in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the same is no more res integra. Even though the High Court can entertain a writ petition against any order or direction passed/action taken by the State under Article 226 of the Constitution, it ought not to do so as a matter of course when the aggrieved person could have availed of an effective alternative remedy in the manner prescribed by law (see Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari vs. Antarim Zil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... an alternative remedy provided by statute for obtaining relief. Where it is open to the aggrieved petitioner to move another tribunal, or even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High Court normally will not permit by entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the machinery created under the statute to be bypassed, and will leave the party applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up." (emphasis supplied) We may usefully refer to the exposition of this Court in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of Orissa & Ors. 11, wherein it is observed that where a right or liability is created by a statute, which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute must only be availed of. In paragraph 11, the Court observed thus: "11. Under the scheme of the Act, there is a hierarchy of authorities before which the petitioners can get adequate redress against the wrongful acts complained of. The petitioners have the right to prefer an appeal before the Prescribed Authority under sub section (1) of Section 23 of the Act. If the petitioners are dissatisfied with the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, does not mean that it can disregard the substantive provisions of a statute and pass orders which can be settled only through a mechanism prescribed by the statute. 15. We may now revert to the Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. (supra), which had adopted the view taken by the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Panoli Intermediate (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.19 and also of the Karnataka High Court in Phoenix Plasts Company vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeal I), Bangalore20. The logic applied in these decisions proceeds on fallacious premise. For, these decisions are premised on the logic that provision such as Section 31 of the 1995 Act, cannot curtail the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. This approach is faulty. It is not a matter of taking away the jurisdiction of the High Court. In a given case, the assessee may approach the High Court before the statutory period of appeal expires to challenge the assessment order by way of writ petition 19 AIR 2015 Guj 97 20 2013 (298) ELT 481 (Kar.) on the gr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... condonable period is specifically prescribed by a statute, it would not be appropriate even under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution to entertain the writ petition so as to breach the express provision in the statute and act contrary to the mandate of the legislature. It is for the legislature to prescribe the limits or not to do so for condoning the delay. Exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India would amount to doing violence to the statutory provision and rendering the same otiose. In other words, the legislative intent is clear that the Parliament never intended that delay beyond specified period in filing the appeal could be condoned. It is not for the High Court to re-write the statute in the garb of exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. The view which has been expressed by us herein above, is supported by various judicial precedents." 11. This Court in the case of M/s Abhishek Trading Corporation Vs. Commissioner (Appeals) & Another [Writ Tax No. 1394 of 2023, decided on 19.01.2024], has held as under:- "7. The Central Goods and Services Act is a special statute and a self-contain....