2020 (12) TMI 474 - HC - Service Tax

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Petitioner had presented the appeal which was beyond the maximum limitation period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order passed by the First Respondent - 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. 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. Appeal timeline and condonation of delay under the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Entertaining a Writ Petition challenging a time-barred appeal.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with a Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner challenging an order passed by the Second Respondent under the Finance Act, 1994. The Petitioner received the order on 31.12.2016 and was required to file an appeal within two months, extendable by one month on showing sufficient cause. However, the Petitioner presented the appeal on 19.04.2017, beyond the three-month limitation period. The Second Respondent refused to entertain the time-barred appeal, leading to the Writ Petition.

2. The judgment references a Supreme Court ruling emphasizing that a High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, should not entertain a Writ Petition challenging an order not appealed within the statutory limitation period. Accordingly, the High Court in this case declined to review the merits of the controversy due to the time-barred nature of the appeal. The judgment highlights the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and the limited scope for judicial intervention in such cases.

3. The Court's decision to dismiss the Writ Petition underscores the significance of complying with statutory appeal timelines and the limitations on judicial review in such instances. The judgment reflects the legal principle that failure to adhere to prescribed timelines can result in the rejection of appeals, thereby restricting the scope for subsequent legal challenges. As a result, the Writ Petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded in the matter, concluding the legal proceedings without delving into the substantive issues of the case.