2022 (3) TMI 97 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Cancellation of petitioner's petition - appeal filed within time limitation or not - Section 107 of the TNGST Act - HELD THAT - It is a settled proposition of law that, when there is a limitation prescribed under the Statute and the Statute itself restricts the condonable period of limitation beyond which no judicial authority can extend the condonable period by way of a judicial order for any reason - Here in the case in hand, the Statute prescribes the limitation of three months and thereafter it also fixed the condonable period of 30 days. Both this period was over as early as on 21.12.2019, whereas admittedly the appeal was filed only on 25.08.2021. Now the reason stated by the petitioner is that, due to COVID-19 pandemic he could not file an appeal and his belated filing of appeal is saved by the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the suo-motu proceedings by an order dated 15.03.2020 2021 (11) TMI 387 - SC ORDER extending the period of limitation by three months and the same was extended from time to time. In this case, absolutely no reason is available for this Court to venture into such an attempt because, admittedly the condonable period was over by 21.12.2019 and admittedly the appeal was filed only on 25.08.2021. The Supreme Court order has come only on 15.03.2020. Therefore, before 15.03.2020 within the condonable period, admittedly the petitioner has not chosen to file the appeal, nor the petitioner has filed any writ petition before this Court during that period and the same has not been kept pending before this Court. When that being so, the proposition projected in the said case as cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not be in any way helpful to the petitioner to advance his case. Therefore, for that reason also, the present plea made by the petitioner cannot be entertained. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner cannot have any successful challenge against the impugned order, where the appeal filed by the petitioner, for the said reason of want of limitation and also beyond the condonable period of delay was dismissed, of course rightly - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing an appeal under the TNGST Act.
2. Extending the limitation period due to COVID-19 pandemic.
3. Applicability of judicial orders in extending limitation periods.
4. Comparison with a previous judgment regarding limitation extension.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a Writ of Certiorari challenging the cancellation of their registration under the TNGST Act. The cancellation order was dated 22.08.2019, and the petitioner failed to file an appeal within the prescribed three-month period, which ended on 21.11.2019. The petitioner belatedly filed the appeal on 25.08.2021, nearly two years later, beyond the one-month condonable period after the original three-month limitation. The appellate authority rejected the appeal on grounds of limitation.

2. The petitioner claimed that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the COVID-19 pandemic. They argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 15.03.2020 extended the limitation period for matters pending before judicial and quasi-judicial authorities. The petitioner contended that their appeal should be entertained based on this extended limitation. However, the court found this argument unconvincing as the pandemic did not exist during the original limitation period, and the Supreme Court's order could not be applied retrospectively.

3. The court emphasized that statutory limitations, once expired, cannot be extended by judicial orders beyond the condonable period specified in the statute. In this case, the petitioner failed to file the appeal within the prescribed timeline and the subsequent condonable period. The court rejected the petitioner's attempt to rely on the judicial order extending limitations due to the COVID-19 pandemic as a reason for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

4. In comparing the present case with a previous judgment where an extended period was granted for filing an appeal, the court highlighted the differences in circumstances. The previous judgment allowed an extended period due to the pendency of the writ petition, which was not applicable in the current case. The court concluded that the petitioner's delay in filing the appeal was unjustifiable, and the rejection of the appeal on grounds of limitation was upheld. The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.