TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1782
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rcise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with the following prayer(s): "Under the aforesaid circumstances, it is prayed therefore that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to: (a) Admit the Writ Petition; (b) Issue rule nisi calling upon the Opposite Party as to why the DRC-07 Order dated 22.10.2024 passed by the Opp. Party vide Annexure-3, shall not be quashed being illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law; (c) If the opposite party do not show cause or show insufficient cause make the rule absolute; (d) To pass such further order/orders, direction/directions, writ/writs as may be deemed fit and proper; (e) To allow the writ petition; And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound and ever pray." 2. It is emanating from contents of the writ petition that the adjudicating authority having detected discrepancies in the figures reflected in the returns in Form GSTR-2A vis-à-vis GSTR-3B relating to claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) issued notice in Form GST ASMT-10 on 26th April, 2024. 2.1. Accordingly, summary of show-cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 27....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Department-opposite party. 6. On perusal of order passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, the adjudicating authority has compared the returns while undertaking scrutiny under Section 61 of the GST Act read with Rule 99 of the GST Rules for the tax periods from April, 2020 to March, 2021 and noticed discrepancies and, accordingly, the notices were issued. 6.1. As is revealed from order under Section 73 of the GST Act, the Assessing Authority has recorded the following: "And whereas the tax payer has been intimated this discrepancy in Form GST ASMT-10 vide Ref No.ZD210424028011A. Date 26.04.2024 as per provision u/s. 61 of the CGST/SGST Act r/w Rule 99(1) of CGST/SGST Rules with a direction to explain the above mentioned discrepancy along with supporting documents in Form GST ASMT-11 by dated 26.05.2024. But neither you have furnished any explanation within stipulated period of time nor has complied in any manner to the said intimation of discrepancies. Thus, it is ascertained and established from his disclosed the return figure that he has made incorrect self-asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... however, Mr. G.K. Misra raised a preliminary objection on the ground that on the facts as stated by the applicant himself he had an alternative remedy by way of a regular appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal and that consequently this Court should not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. *** The law of limitation for filing revision petition before the Collector and the Revenue Commissioner was laid down in Rules 52 and 53 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, and a period of thirty days from the date of receipt by the assessee of the order of the appellate authority was fixed for filing revision petitions before the Collector and a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the order of the Collector was fixed for filing revision petitions before the Revenue Commissioner. *** I am inclined to agree with Mr. Misra. It is true that the existence of an alternative remedy may not always be a sufficient ground for this Court to refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 and cases may arise where the unconstitutionality or the illegality of the order under challenge is so apparent that notwithstanding the existence of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent has been contending that the sales were completed in Orissa and were consequently purely internal sales. This disputed question can be finally disposed of only by a court of appeal. ***" 6.6. In the present case, the order impugned is passed on 22nd October, 2024, whereas the writ petition is filed on 23rd October, 2025. The petitioner attempted to circumvent the process of alternative remedy only to by-pass the rigours of conditions hedged for filing appeal and absence of sufficient reason demonstrating delay in approaching this Court. 6.7. This Court is taken to a decision rendered in Tata Steel Ltd. Vrs. Raj Kumar Banerjee, (2025) 5 SCR 814. After review of catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India having regard to period of limitation stipulated in Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, observed as follows: "10.4.In the present case, Respondent No.1 was neither a party to the proceedings before the NCLT nor privy to the CoC deliberations, and became aware of the order only upon its subsequent disclosure. However, it is evident that the Company Secretary of the Corporate Debtor duly informed the listing departments of both NSE an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egorically held that the NCLAT cannot condone any delay beyond 15 days even on equitable grounds; and that the appellate mechanism under IBC is strictly time-bound by design to preserve the speed and certainty of the insolvency resolution process. 11.2. Thus, the NCLAT has no power to condone delay beyond the period stipulated under the statute. Accordingly, the second issue is answered by us. 12. In view of the foregoing, the order passed by the NCLAT condoning the delay in filing the appeal, is ultra vires and liable to be set aside. 13. Before parting, we may observe that time is of the essence in statutory appeals, and the prescribed limitation period must be strictly adhered to. Even a delay of a single day is fatal if the statute does not provide for its condonation. As held by us, the NCLAT has no power to condone delay beyond the period stipulated under the statute. Allowing condonation in such cases would defeat the legislative intent and open the floodgates to belated and potentially frivolous petitions, thereby undermining the efficacy and finality of the appellate mechanism." 6.8. The Division Bench of this Court taking cognizance of the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ise, (2023) 120 GSTR 66 (Raj), to hold as follows: "7. In Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada Vrs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., (2020) 4 SCR 602, the apex Court at paragraphs 14 and 15 held as follows: '14. A priori, we have no hesitation in taking the view that what this Court cannot do in exercise of its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, it is unfathomable as to how the High Court can take a different approach in the matter in reference to Article 226 of the Constitution. The principle underlying the rejection of such argument by this Court would apply on all fours to the exercise of power by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 15. We may now revert to the Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. Vrs. Union of India, 2018 (361) ELT 22(AP) which had adopted the view taken by the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Panoli Intermediate (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. Union of India and Ors., AIR 2015 Guj 97 and also of the Karnataka High Court in Phoenix Plasts Co. Vrs. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeal-I), Bangalore, 2013 (298) ELT 481 (Kar). T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y one of the following methods, namely:- *** (d) by making it available on the common portal; or' In view of the aforesaid provision, it is made clear that even though the petitioner has not been communicated with the order physically, but since the same was made available on the common portal, it is deemed to have been served on him. Therefore, such plea is of no use for the petitioner. 10. In view of the foregoing discussions and by applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, this Court is of the considered view that since the petitioner has not filed any statutory appeal before the appellate authority within the limitation period and has directly filed this writ petition before this Court after two years and five months of passing of the impugned order, the writ petition filed by the petitioner cannot be entertained as being not maintainable." 7. With the aforesaid legal perspective of exercise of power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India to entertain writ petition vis-à-vis limitation provided under the statute, examining the fact of the present case, there is no scintilla of scope to maintain the writ peti....