TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1780
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 24.04.2025. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the Order-in-Appeal dated 30.05.2025 passed by the respondent - Commissioner (Appeals) preferred by the petitioner challenging the Order-in-Appeal dated 24.04.2024 has been rejected on the ground that the same is not maintainable and time barred. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Abhishek Mehta appearing for the petitioner has submitted that there is a delay of six days in filing the appeal challenging the Order-in-Original dated 24.04.2024. It is submitted that under the provisions of Section 107 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), the appeal memo was uploaded online on 05.10.2024. However, the same has been rejected on the ground of delay. In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr. Mehta has placed reliance on the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Panoli Intermediate (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2015 (2) GLR 1395 and has submitted that this Court while exercising its powers under Article 226 can condone the delay. Apart from this submissions, learned advocate Mr. Mehta has submitted that the Order-in-Original is also required to be quashed and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of three months or six months, as the case may be, allow it to be presented within a further period of one month." 8. Thus, the maximum period of presenting the appeal against the Order-in-Original was 3 months and thereafter, if the Appellate Authority is of the opinion that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause of presenting the appeal and the same can be allowed to be presented within further period of one month. Thus, the maximum period would be 120 days i.e. one month is only allowed if the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the appellant was presented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within a period of three months. Thus, at the first instant, the petitioner was required to file an appeal within a period of three months, and only if the Appellate Authority gets satisfied that the cause shown by the petitioner for non-filing of the appeal within a period of three months; the Appellate Authority has the power to give one month more to present the same. 8.1. In the present case, the petitioner has filed appeal after a perio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was only 60 days. In other words, the appeal was presented beyond the condonable period of 60 days. As a result, this Court could not have condoned the delay of 71 days. Notably, while admitting the appeal, the Court had condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, at the final hearing of the appeal, an objection regarding appeal being barred by limitation was allowed to be raised being a jurisdictional issue and while dealing with the said objection, the Court referred to the decisions in Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur & Ors., Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise vs. Hongo India Private Limited & Anr., Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors. and Suryachakra Power Corporation Limited vs. Electricity Department represented by its Superintending Engineer, Port Blair & Ors. and concluded that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be invoked by the Court for maintaining an appeal beyond maximum prescribed period in Section 125 of the Electricity Act." 11. Thus, the Apex Court in the case of Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (supra) has c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... expeditiously decide the grievances of a person who may be aggrieved by an order of the adjudicatory officer or by an appropriate Commission. The Act is a special legislation within the meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act and, therefore, the prescription with regard to the limitation has to be the binding effect and the same has to be followed regard being had to its mandatory nature. To put it in a different way, the prescription of limitation in a case of present nature, when the statute commands that this Court may condone the further delay not beyond 60 days, it would come within the ambit and sweep of the provisions and policy of legislation. It is equivalent to Section 3 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, it is uncondonable and it cannot be condoned taking recourse to Article 142 of the Constitution." 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further held in the case of Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (supra) as under :- "19. 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... If the appeal is presented by the assessee beyond the extended statutory limitation period of 60 days in terms of Section 31 of the 2005 Act and is, therefore, not entertained, it is incomprehensible as to how it would become a case of violation of fundamental right, much less statutory or legal right as such." 14. Thus, the Apex Court has held that even if the writ petition is filed after the expiry of maximum prescribed period of limitation, though alternative efficacious remedy is available, 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 and doing so would be in teeth of principle of dictum underlying the dictum of three Judge's Bench of the Apex Court in case of ONGC v. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corpn. Ltd. (2017) 5 S.C.C. 42. The Apex Court has further held that, albeit, the High Court has wide powers, but the same does not mean that it would issue a writ which may be inconsistent with the legislative intent regarding the dispensation explicitly prescribed under Section 31 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and if the same is done, it would render the l....