TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1146
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) dated 21.3.2024, calling upon the petitioner to pay tax of Rs. 1,98,720/- along with interest and penalty making total demand of Rs. 5,03,768/-. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that notice for personal hearing was available on portal, which is dated 26.08.2025, asking hearing on 02.09.2025. Further, as per the portal, other dates which are mentioned for personal hearing are 06.09.2025 and 10.09.2025, but the petitioner was never informed about such hearing by mail or post. Therefore, the petitioner could not remain present for hearing. Thereafter, by impugned order dated 30.9.2025, the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent No. 2 on the ground of delay. 5. Learned advocate Mr. A. S. Asthavadi for the petitioner has submitted that in his application, the petitioner came to know about the impugned demand order dated 21.3.2024, only on 30.3.2025, and as soon as the petitioner came to know about the order, it approached the department and the concerned office, which advised the petitioner to either make the payment or file appeal with condonation of delay. The said aspect is not considered by the respondent No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rival submissions. 13. The petitioner filed the appeal under Section 107 of the Act challenging the Demand order dated 21.03.2024 belatedly after 284 days. The only reason assigned by the petitioner explaining the delay in his application at Annexure "D" at Page-116 is in Para-3.1, which reads as under: "3.1 The appellant due to not having the much knowledge of the computer have appointed a part time accountant for writing of his company account. The accountant work is only is to maintain the books of account of the company and to file the statutory GST return. Therefore, he had also not had the knowledge that Order of Determination Tax DRC-07 have been issued." 14. At this stage, we may refer to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and Ors. v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, (2020) 19 S.C.C 681. The Apex Court while examining the issue analogs to the issue of Sales Tax and VAT, Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and provisions of Section 31 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides power of Appellate Authority to condone the delay and power of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioned that the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be invoked by the Court (High Court) for maintaining an appeal beyond the maximum period provided in Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2023, it has held as under:- "15...... In the subsequent decision in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, this Court went to observe that an Act cannot bar and curtail remedy under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution. The Court, however added a word of caution and expounded that the Constitutional Court would certainly take note of the legislative intent manifested in the provisions of the Act and would exercise its jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the enactment. To put it differently, the fact that the High Court has wide jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution does not mean that it can disregard the substantive provisions of a statute and pas orders which can be settled only through a mechanism prescribed by the statute." 16. The Apex Court has also referred to the array of decisions dealing with provision of Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 in case of Special Legislation. One of such which has been rendered in the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arat High Court in Panoli Intermediate (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. AIR 2015 Guj 97 and also of the Karnataka High Court in Phoenix Plasts Company vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (AppealI), Bangalore 2013 (298) ELT 481 (Kar.) 33. 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 on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction or passed in excess of jurisdiction by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction including in flagrant disregard of law and rules of procedure or in violation of principles of natural justice, where no procedure is specified. The High Court may accede to such a challenge and can also nonsuit the petitioner on the ground that alternative efficacious remedy is availab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is done, it would render the legislative scheme and intention behind the stated provision otiose. Thus, on the same principles as enunciated by the Apex Court, we are not inclined to set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority and more particularly in wake of the lame excuse given by the petitioner for condoning the delay such as the illness of the Accountant and closure of business. 19. We may also refer to the observations of the Apex Court in the case M/s. Singh Enterprise vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur & Ors., rendered in Appeal (Civil) No.5949 of 2007 decided on 14.12.2007 wherein the Apex Court has refused to accept the reason of belatedly filing of the appeal on the pretext of lack of experience and closure of business. 20. Section 107 (4) of the Act grants discretion to the Appellate Authority, to allow additional one month in case he/she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by "sufficient cause" from presenting the appeal after 90 days, but within a period of 30 days. Thus, the discretion of the Appellate authority ends on the completion of additional 30 days. Such discretion does not extend to powers under Article 226 of the Const....