TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 105
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble pump stampings. The petitioner is duly registered under GST in the State of Gujarat bearing registration No. 24ALZPP5568Q1ZQ. 4. During Financial Year (FY) 2020-21, the petitioner had purchased / received goods (i.e. SS Round Bar) from Vinayak Steel (proprietorship of Patel Jayeshbhai Babubhai) ("supplier"), bearing GSTIN: 24AJPPP1801N1ZY, for a taxable value of Rs. 51,09,450/-. The said supplier had issued tax invoices from time to time for the supply of goods and charged applicable GST at 18%, amounting to Rs. 9,19,702/- (CGST: Rs. 4,59,851/- & SGST: Rs. 4,59,851/-) on the invoices and collected the same from the petitioner. The said supplier had also generated the e-way bill for the movement of the goods from its place of business to the place of business of the petitioner as per Rule 138(1) of the Gujarat State GST Rules, 2017 ("the GGST Rules, 2017"), read with Section 68 of the Gujarat State GST Act, 2017("the GGST Act, 2017"). 5. During the same period (FY 2020-21), the petitioner also purchased inputs from Umiya Enterprise (proprietorship of Patel Hiren Bharatbhai), bearing GSTIN 24BUIPP3185Q1ZV. The petitioner availed ITC amounting to Rs. 8,80,210/- (CGST of Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....M GST APL-01 before the learned Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal-1), Division-2, Ahmedabad ("Appellate Authority") on 08.05.2025 against the order passed by the respondent No. 2. As the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed time limit, the Petitioner also submitted an application for condonation of delay, citing bona fide reasons. Ultimately, the appeal has been rejected on the ground of delay. 12. Learned advocate Mr. Abhay Y. Desai, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner was under the bona fide belief that, after making the submissions, the respondent-authorities would have dropped the demand and he was not aware of the order being passed by the adjudicating authority as it was issued only on the GSTN portal, hence, no action could be taken by the petitioner in the absence of any such knowledge of the order. It is submitted that since the petitioner was issued the notice on 25.04.2025 and the bank had received the notice on 06.05.2025, it informed the petitioner on 06.05.2025 about the receipt of the notice for recovery of the dues. It is submitted that the petitioner immediately filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (App....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt under Article 226 of the Constitution are wide, but certainly not wider than the plenary powers bestowed on this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution. Article 142 is a conglomeration and repository of the entire judicial powers under the Constitution, to do complete justice to the parties. Even while exercising that power, this Court is required to bear in mind the legislative intent and not to render the statutory provision otiose. In a recent decision of a three Judge Bench of this Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited & Ors., the statutory appeal filed before this Court was barred by 71 days and the maximum time limit for condoning the delay in terms of Section 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 jurisdictiona....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C 602] or in Union Carbide Corpn. case [Union Carbide Corpn. v. Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC 584] with the principle set down in Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commr., AIR 1963 SC 996. Be it noted, when there is a statutory command by the legislation as regards limitation and there is the postulate that delay can be condoned for a further period not exceeding sixty days, needless to say, it is based on certain underlined, fundamental, general issues of public policy as has been held in Union Carbide Corpn. case [Union Carbide Corpn. v. Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC 584]. As the pronouncement in Chhattisgarh SEB v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, (2010) 5 SCC 23, lays down quite clearly that the policy behind the Act emphasising on the constitution of a special adjudicatory forum, is meant to 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 n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of a three Judge Bench of this Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (supra). In other words, the fact that the High Court has wide powers, 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 2005 Act. That would render the legislative scheme and intention behind the stated provision otiose. xxx xxx xxx 22. Suffice it to observe that this decision is on the facts of that case and cannot be cited as a precedent in support of an argument that the High Court is free to entertain the writ petition assailing the assessment order even if filed beyond the statutory period of maximum 60 days in filing appeal. The remedy of appeal is creature of statute. 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." 19. Thus, the Apex Court has held that even if the writ petition is filed after the e....