2020 (12) TMI 513 - HC - Service Tax

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Petitioner had presented the appeal before the Second Respondent 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 -vs- 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 would also not be possible to entertain this Writ Petition challenging the order of the Second Respondent, who has rightly refused to take that time barred appeal to file - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the order passed by the First Respondent
- Entertaining a time-barred appeal by the Second Respondent
- Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Analysis:
1. The petitioner received an order under the Finance Act, 1994 from the First Respondent on 21.12.2016 and was required to file an appeal within two months. However, the appeal was presented to the Second Respondent on 19.04.2017, beyond the permissible three-month period. The Second Respondent refused to entertain the time-barred appeal, leading to the filing of a Writ Petition challenging this decision.

2. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada -vs- Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, the High Court emphasized that Writ Petitions should not be entertained if the order by a Statutory Authority was not appealed within the prescribed limitation period before the Appellate Authority. Consequently, the High Court could not entertain the Writ Petition challenging the Second Respondent's decision to reject the time-barred appeal.

3. Given the legal position established by the Supreme Court, the High Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The Court dismissed the Writ Petition, stating that it was not feasible to review the controversy due to the appeal's time-barred nature. As a result, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed, and no costs were imposed on either party.