9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 119 - HC - GSTMaintainability of appeal - appeal filed after 289 days from the date on which even the limitation period expired - HELD THAT - An appeal could have been filed on or before 29.05.2022, which provision was not availed by the petitioner herein. The Hon ble Supreme Court in IN RE COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION 2021 (3) TMI 497 - SC ORDER also declared that if a longer period than 90 days is provided in a Statute, then that longer period will apply. In the BGST Act, u/s 107(4) there is a provision for condonation of delay, if the appeal is filed delayed, within one month of expiry of limitation. Even if that be deemed to be applicable then the appeal ought to have been filed by 28.06.2022. The appeal is filed only on 13.04.2023 after 289 days from the date on which even the limitation period, as stipulated by the Hon ble Supreme Court, expired. There are no reason to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, especially since it is not a measure to be employed where there are alternate remedies available and the assessee has not been diligent in availing such alternate remedies within the stipulated time. The writ petition hence would stand dismissed.
Issues involved:
The issue involves the rejection of a writ petition against an appellate order on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. Details of the Judgment: The appellate order cited Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, allowing appeals to be filed within three months with the option for delay condonation within a further one month. The order also considered the Supreme Court's extension of limitation due to the pandemic situation, allowing appeals to be filed within ninety days from a specified date. Despite these provisions, the petitioner failed to file the appeal within the extended timeline. The Court noted that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be invoked when alternate remedies are available, and the petitioner did not diligently avail such remedies within the prescribed time. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
|
