9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (12) TMI 137 - HC - GSTApplicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act,1963 - failure to file returns under CGST/SGST Acts - issuance of series of orders under Section 62 of the CGST/SGST Act - HELD THAT - The petitioner has not made out any case for the grant of any relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, the petitioner attempted to file the appeal against Ext.P2 series of orders only in the month of December 2023 i.e., almost four years after the date on which the orders (against which the appeal was sought to be filed) had been issued. This Court cannot, normally in the exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India extend the time limit for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Acts. There is yet another aspect of the matter. Though Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not fix any period of limitation for the filing of a writ petition, it is settled law that a writ petition can be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. As already observed the orders issued by the adjudicating authority were issued in the month of February 2020. This Writ Petition has been filed only in the year 2024. That is another reason to decline relief. The petitioner has failed to approach this Court within a reasonable time. The writ petition fails, and it is accordingly dismissed.
Issues:
- Failure to file returns under CGST/SGST Acts leading to issuance of orders under Section 62 - Petitioner's attempt to file an appeal beyond the specified time limit under Section 107 of CGST/SGST Acts - Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to extend the time limit for filing an appeal - Application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - Consideration of extraordinary circumstances for extending the time limit for filing an appeal - Dismissal of a writ petition based on inordinate delay - Evaluation of petitioner's claim of illness as a reason for delay Analysis: The petitioner, a contractor engaged in civil work, faced Ext.P2 orders under Section 62 of the CGST/SGST Acts due to failure in filing returns. The petitioner sought to file an appeal against these orders for months in 2018 but faced technical difficulties preventing timely appeal submission. The petitioner argued for consideration of the appeal under Writ Jurisdiction, citing a similar ruling by the Calcutta High Court regarding the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Government Pleader contended that the petitioner's attempt to file an appeal in December 2023, almost four years after the issuance of the orders, did not align with the provisions of Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Acts. The Government Pleader emphasized that no grounds existed for invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India to extend the appeal timeline beyond what was specified by the Acts. The Court, after hearing both parties, concluded that the petitioner failed to establish a case for relief under Article 226. The Court highlighted that the attempt to file an appeal after almost four years did not comply with the statutory time limit under Section 107. Referring to previous judgments, the Court emphasized the limitations on extending appeal timelines under relevant Acts. The Court referenced a previous judgment to illustrate that while Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 might not apply, Section 14 could be invoked in exceptional cases. The Court emphasized the need for extraordinary circumstances to warrant extending the appeal filing deadline, citing a specific case where such relief was granted based on unique circumstances. Additionally, the Court noted that while Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not specify a limitation period for filing a writ petition, inordinate delays can lead to dismissal. The Court highlighted the significant delay between the issuance of orders and the filing of the writ petition in this case as a reason for denying relief. The Court also expressed skepticism regarding the petitioner's claim of illness as a reason for the delay in filing the writ petition. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition, citing the lack of extraordinary circumstances, inordinate delay, and questionable reasons provided by the petitioner for the delay.
|
