2019 (6) TMI 952 - HC - Central Excise

Jurisdiction - Scope of judicial review - HELD THAT - At the highest, as the ground raised, may have warranted some examination the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, but not in exercise of powers of judicial review. In this case, the petitioner, delayed the institution of appeal and therefore, cannot expect that the this Court converts itself into an appeal court whilst exercising powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The contention as raised would require reevaluation and re-appreciation of factual position. Such an exercise cannot be undertaken in the exercise of limited jurisdiction of judicial review. The impugned order was made on 10th March 2016. Even the final order by the Tribunal was made on 21st November 2017. This petition was however, instituted only on 29th September 2018. There is absolutely no explanation for inordinate delay in the institution of the petition - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to orders dated 10.03.2016, 25.05.2017, and 21.11.2017 regarding time-barred appeal under Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged orders dated 10.03.2016, 25.05.2017, and 21.11.2017 concerning a time-barred appeal under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The appeal was dismissed as time-barred by the Appellate Authority and upheld by the Tribunal. The challenge was based on Full Bench decisions of Gujarat and Hyderabad High Courts, which held that the Appellate Authority cannot condone delays beyond 90 days. The High Court concurred with these decisions, emphasizing that even in a writ petition under Article 226/227, delays beyond 90 days should not be condoned. The challenge to the orders dated 25.05.2017 and 21.11.2017 was deemed meritless.

Regarding the order dated 10.03.2016, the petitioner contended that demanding duty on finished products amounted to double taxation as two out of three agencies had already paid the tax. However, the respondent argued that this contention did not question the jurisdiction or principles of natural justice. The Court found that this issue did not fall within the scope of judicial review as explained by the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court. The delay in instituting the appeal and the subsequent petition further weakened the petitioner's case, as no explanation was provided for the significant delay. The Court highlighted that converting into an appeal court during a judicial review was not appropriate, and reevaluation of factual positions was beyond the scope of limited jurisdiction.

Ultimately, the petition was dismissed due to the lack of merit in challenging the time-barred orders and the inadequacy of the petitioner's contentions. The Court also noted the absence of any valid explanation for the substantial delay in filing the petition. Consequently, no costs were awarded in this case.