2020 (12) TMI 127 - HC - Service Tax

Maintainability of petition - order not appealed, instead this petition filed beyond time limitation - HELD THAT - The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) LTU, KAKINADA ORS. VERSUS M/S. GLAXO SMITH KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LIMITED 2020 (5) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT has emphatically laid down that the High Court in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to entertain Writ Petition assailing the order passed by a Statutory Authority which was not appealed against within the maximum period of limitation before the concerned Appellate Authority. Thus, it is not possible for this Court to express any view on the correctness or otherwise on the merits of the controversy involved in the matter - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to prefer appeal within the prescribed limitation period under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain a Writ Petition challenging an order not appealed against within the limitation period.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner did not appeal against the order passed by the Second Respondent within the prescribed period of two months under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner instead filed a Writ Petition challenging the order after the expiration of the maximum limitation period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. The High Court noted the legal position established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a previous case, emphasizing that a Writ Petition should not be entertained by the High Court if the order by a Statutory Authority was not appealed against within the maximum limitation period before the Appellate Authority. Due to the failure of the petitioner to adhere to the statutory appeal mechanism within the prescribed time frame, the High Court concluded that it could not express any view on the merits of the controversy involved in the matter.

2. The judgment highlights the legal principle that the High Court, in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not entertain a Writ Petition challenging an order that was not appealed against within the statutory limitation period before the Appellate Authority. The Court's decision to dismiss the Writ Petition in this case was based on the established legal position and the failure of the petitioner to follow the prescribed appeal process within the specified timeframe. Consequently, the High Court held that it was not possible to delve into the merits of the controversy due to the procedural lapse on the part of the petitioner. The connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed with no costs imposed in this matter.