TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 169
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Impugned Assessment Order dated 04.06.2025 (ANNEXURE-1) passed by the Respondent No. 3, having been passed without jurisdiction; II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Impugned Notice dated 17.03.2025 (ANNEXURE-2) having been passed/issued without jurisdiction. III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of prohibition restraining Respondents and/or officers of the UP GST department from taking any coercive action against the Petitioner, in any manner, in respect of the Impugned Order dated 04.06.2025( ANNEXURE-1)." 3. After hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and upon perusal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....further window of one month as per Section 107(4) of the Act, in case sufficient cause is shown to the satisfaction of the authority. We need not burden this order by the settled law that the prescribed limitation is to be strictly followed in Tax Laws, suffice to say that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several judgments including the judgment in SinghEnterprises v. C.C.E., Jamshedpur, (2008) 221 ELT 163 (S.C.) has held that under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, the delay cannot be condoned beyond what is prescribed under the Central Excise Act as the language of the said section specifically provides for condonation of delay of additional 30 days only. Section 85 of the Act is in pari materia with the above section. One may examine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elay only up to 30 days after the expiry of 60 days which is the normal period for preferring appeal. Therefore, there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Commissioner and the High Court were therefore justified in holding that there was no power to condone the delay after the expiry of 30 days' period." 7. Furthermore, in Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India Private Limited, (2009) 5 SCC 791, the Supreme Court has held as under:- "31. In this regard, it is useful to refer to a recent decision of this Court in Punjab Fibres Ltd. [(2008) 3 SCC 73] The Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise, Noida was the appellant in this case. While considering the very same question, namely, w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been camouflaged to agitate that ingredients of Section 74 of the GST Act has not been met in the show cause notice or the assessment order, which according to this Court is a ground, which was very much available to the petitioner immediately on the issuance of show cause notice on 04.06.2025. We may note that expeditious adjudication of issue is a hallmark of Tax laws as we find that as per Section 107(12) of the Act, any appeal before the authority is to be decided within a period of one year. 9. However, we find that in the present matter the petitioner had been a fence sitter and has not been diligent in pursuing his rights and has filed the present writ petition afte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome fundamental principles of public policy and regulate the exercise of its power and discretion accordingly. C. The prescription of limitation when the statute commands that delay may be condoned to a maximum of one month further would come within the ambit and sweep of the policy of legislation. In such cases, Section 29(2) read with Section 3 of the Limitation Act would apply, and accordingly, the Courts shall have no power to condone the delay of any further period even in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. D. The principle of Section 14 of the Limitation Act which is a principle based on advancing the cause of justice would certainly apply to exclude time taken in prosecuting proceeding....