TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1453
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd penalty Rs.78,184/-) has been dismissed as time barred. The remaining prayers (in the petition) have not been pressed. 3. Arising from the ex-parte adjudication order dated 23.04.2024, the petitioner first filed an application referable to Section 161 of the Act (seeking rectification in the order dated 23.04.2024), on 23.5.2024 i.e. after a month and one day. The said application was rejected by the order dated 22.10.2024, as not maintainable. 4. At that stage, the petitioner filed an appeal under section 107 of the Act on 29.11.2024 i.e. within a month and eight days from the date of the order passed under Section 161 of the Act. 5. According to the petitioner, there was no delay in filing that appeal as it was entitled to the benefit of the principle underlying Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "Limitation Act"). However, the appellate authority has rejected the appeal and dismissed those proceedings as time-barred, vide order dated 05.03.2025. 6. Primarily, this order is under challenge in the present writ petition. At present, the Tribunal has not been made functional. For that reason, the present writ petition has been entertain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5 SCC 791 and Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, (2020) 19 SCC 681. 11. Alternatively, it has been submitted, wherever any application seeking rectification may be filed after expiry of limitation to file such application, no benefit may be drawn by such a person, by relying on principle contained under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, before we discuss the issue any further, it would be useful to extract the provisions of Section 107(1), (4) of the Act. They read as below: "Section 107(1): Appeals to Appellate Authority.- (1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act or the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act by an adjudicating authority may appeal to such Appellate Authority as may be prescribed within three months from the date on which the said decision or order is communicated to such person. (2)... (3)... (4):The Appellate Authority may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s unable to entertain it. (2) In computing the period of limitation for any application, the time during which the applicant has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the same party for the same relief shall be excluded, where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 2 of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), the provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply in relation to a fresh suit instituted on permission granted by the court under rule 1 of that Order, where such permission is granted on the ground that the first suit must fail by reason of a defect in the jurisdiction of the court or other cause of a like nature. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,- (a) in excluding the time during which a former civil proceeding was pending, the day on which that proceeding was instituted and the day on which it ended shall both be counted; (b) a plaintiff or an applica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ef to a person who institutes an appeal out of time in an appropriate case. Also, Section 10 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act dealt with the filing of a revision petition after a first appeal had already been rejected, and not to a case of a first appeal as provided under Section 128 of the Customs Act. Another feature, which is of direct relevance in this case, is that for revision petitions filed under the U.P. Sales Tax Act a sufficiently long period of 18 months had been given beyond which it was the policy of the legislature not to extend limitation any further. This aspect of Parson Tools has been explained in Consolidated Engineering in some detail by both the main judgment as well as the concurring judgment. In the latter judgment, it has been pointed out that there is a vital distinction between extending time and condoning delay. Like Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, Section 128 of the Customs Act is a Section which lays down that delay cannot be condoned beyond a certain period. Like Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, Section 128 of the Customs Act does not lay down a long period. In these circumstances, to infer exclusion of Section 14 or the principles contained in Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at if its conditions are otherwise met, the plaintiff/applicant should be put in the same position as he was when he started an abortive proceeding. What is necessary is the absence of negligence or inaction. So long as the plaintiff or applicant is bonafide pursuing a legal remedy which turns out to be abortive, the time beginning from the date of the cause of action of an appellate proceeding is to be excluded if such appellate proceeding is from an order in an original proceeding instituted without jurisdiction or which has not resulted in an order on the merits of the case. If this were not so, anomalous results would follow. Take the case of a plaintiff or applicant who has succeeded at the first stage of what turns out to be an abortive proceeding. Assume that, on a given state of facts, a defendant - appellant or other appellant takes six months more than the prescribed period for filing an appeal. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Under explanation (b) of Section 14, the plaintiff or the applicant resisting such an appeal shall be deemed to be prosecuting a proceeding. If the six month period together with the original period for filing the appeal is not to be exc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etition was not dismissed by the High Court on the ground of defect of jurisdiction. However, Section 14 of the Limitation Act is wide in its application, inasmuch as it is not confined in its applicability only to cases of defect of jurisdiction but it is applicable also to cases where the prior proceedings have failed on account of other causes of like nature. The expression 'other cause of like nature' came up for the consideration of this Court in Roshanlal Kuthalia v. R.B. Mohan Singh Oberoi[(1975) 4 SCC 628] and it was held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act is wide enough to cover such cases where the defects are not merely jurisdictional strictly so called but others more or less neighbours to such deficiencies. Any circumstance, legal or factual, which inhibits entertainment or consideration by the court of the dispute on the merits comes within the scope of the section and a liberal touch must inform the interpretation of the Limitation Act which deprives the remedy of one who has a right." Similarly, in India Electric Works Ltd. v. James Mantosh, (1971) 1 SCC 24, this Court held: "7. It is well settled that although all questions of limitation must b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....states:- "29. Savings.- (2) Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of Section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only insofar as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law." A bare reading of this Section would show that the special or local law described therein should prescribe for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the schedule. This would necessarily mean that such special or local law would have to lay down that the suit, appeal or application to be instituted under it should be a suit, appeal or application of the nature described in the schedule. We have already held that such suits, appeals or applications as are referred to in the schedule are only to courts and not to quasi-judici....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... decisions of the Supreme Court in Hongo India (supra) and Glaxo Smith Kline (supra) specifically hold the field. In Hongo India (supra), it has been observed as below: "32. As pointed out earlier, the language used in Sections 35, 35-B, 35-EE, 35-G and 35-H makes the position clear that an appeal and reference to the High Court should be made within 180 days only from the date of communication of the decision or order. In other words, the language used in other provisions makes the position clear that the legislature intended the appellate authority to entertain the appeal by condoning the delay only up to 30 days after expiry of 60 days which is the preliminary limitation period for preferring an appeal. In the absence of any clause condoning the delay by showing sufficient cause after the prescribed period, there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The High Court was, therefore, justified in holding that there was no power to condone the delay after expiry of the prescribed period of 180 days." 33... 34... 35. It was contended before us that the words "expressly excluded" would mean that there must be an express reference....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion-to further the cause of justice where a person pursues a case with due diligence. He may not be non-suited occasioned by a mistake of seeking remedy before a wrong forum. Thus, the underlying principle of Section 14 recognizes-that it applies to persons (claiming its benefit), who may have admittedly made a mistake. Only then, the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act may arise and not otherwise. As to what nature of mistake may lead to application of Section 14 of the Act, it is clear that it may be in the nature of lack of jurisdiction or defect of like nature (construed liberally). As to the wrong forum before whom, such mistake may have been committed, Section 14 is categorical. It includes in its scope, proceedings instituted before the original authority. 27. Seen in that light, an application seeking rectification of mistake was, filed by way of a remedy exits on the statute book. It lies before the authority that may have passed the order, including the Adjudication Authority. Whether such an application may be maintainable, and if maintainable, whether it may be allowed, are questions that may be answered only after conclusion of proceedings for rectific....