2025 (8) TMI 1489

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r clause (a), the petitioner challenges the Order-in-Original dated 29 November 2017. Though from the face of the order, the same is appealable, the petitioner has made a statement that it has no alternate or efficacious remedy. There is a vague statement in paragraph 24 that the remedy, if any, under the Act, is neither efficacious nor adequate nor an alternative. 4. To the Court's query as to why no appeal was filed, Mr. Mundhra submits that the limitation period expired and, therefore, it was not possible to file the appeal. Now, by interrupting the dictation, Mr. Mundhra points out that the appeal could not be filed due to the negligence of one of the employees of the petitioner company. In any event, there is no dispute that no ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hallenging the assessment orders, that mechanism alone must be followed. A writ petition would not be entertained to defeat the statutory scheme. Delay beyond the aggregate period, or rather the maximum condonable period, cannot be condoned by exercising powers either under Article 142 or 226 of the Constitution of India. Such a delay also cannot be condoned by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 9. Mr. Mundhra did try to argue the matter on the merits. In Glaxo Smith Kline (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that the fact that the appellant in question may have an arguable case on merits can have no bearing on the justification for non-filing of the appeal within the statutory period. The Hon'ble Supreme Court f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....perly explained, and the petition must fail at this threshold bar. Having observed that there was no explanation for the delay, observations about the maintainability of the writ petition were really not required. In any event, we are also not too sure about the High Court's reading and construing the decision in Glaxo Smith Kline (supra). 13. Furthermore, it was not pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the above decision of the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 942 of 2021. The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court set aside the learned Single Judge's order but granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within four wee....