9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 1064 - HC - GSTInvocation of extraordinary writ jurisdiction - whether the petitioner is entitled for exclusion of time taken in the writ proceedings from the period of limitation for filing appeal? - Abuse of the process of the Court. Exclusion of time taken in the writ proceedings from the period of limitation for filing appeal - HELD THAT - In M/s. Laxmi Srinivasa R and P Boiled Rice Mill 2022 (12) TMI 822 - SUPREME COURT the Hon ble Apex Court held as under on the point of entitlement to ask for exclusion of the period in terms of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The judgment in the case of M/s. Laxmi Srinivasa R and P Boiled Rice Mill is distinguishable and is of no help to the petitioner for the contention raised. The proposition of law as laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court in M/s. Laxmi Srinivasa R and P Boiled Rice Mill that the exclusion of time is different and cannot be equated with condonation of delay and that the period once excluded cannot be counted for the purpose of computing the period for filing appeal, is well settled, but the said principle of law is not attracted to the petitioner s case herein. The petitioner is not entitled for exclusion of time on the ground that he filed writ petition. The same is also not sufficient ground seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal. Abuse of the process of Court - HELD THAT - In KK. MODI VERSUS KN. MODI 1998 (2) TMI 566 - SUPREME COURT the Hon ble Apex Court in the context of Order 6 Rule 16 of Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings, order to be struck out, or amended any matter in any pleading inter alia which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court , while explaining the phrase abuse of the process of the court , cited relitigation as one of the examples as an abuse of the process of the Court. It was observed that it is an abuse of the process of the Court and contrary to justice and public policy for a party to relitigate the same issue which has already been tried and decided earlier against him. The reagitation may or may not be barred as res judicate. But if the same issue is sought to be reagitated, it also amounts to an abuse of the process of the court. M/s. Mastek Engineering Private Limited 2024 (3) TMI 893 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT is also of no help to the petitioner and does not apply to the facts of the present case. There was no previous writ petition filed, like in the present case. There was no finality attached to any previous Order passed in writ proceedings. The cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal beyond the condonable period was found sufficient by the writ Court, consequently, the writ court condoned the delay and directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits. The writ petitioner is not entitled for exclusion of time taken in writ proceedings and the subsequent proceedings from the period of limitation for filing appeal, for the reason that the petitioner s writ petition was entertained and the assessment order against which now the appeal has been filed was already set aside in the writ proceedings - the petitioner cannot seek condonation of delay in filing the appeal - Filing of the appeal by the writ petitioner after writ proceedings and subsequent proceedings against the same order of assessment, just to avoid the compliance of the directions of the writ Court is nothing but abuse of the process of the Court. The writ petition is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of appeal due to delay beyond condonable period. 2. Entitlement for exclusion of time taken in writ proceedings from the period of limitation for filing appeal. 3. Abuse of the process of Court by the petitioner. Detailed Analysis: 1. Rejection of Appeal Due to Delay Beyond Condonable Period: The petitioner, M/s. Reddy Enterprises, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the rejection of their appeal by the Additional Commissioner (ST) on the grounds that it was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. The appeal was against an order levying tax, interest, and penalty totaling Rs. 56,95,19,460/-. The appellate authority rejected the appeal as it was filed beyond the condonable period of one month under Section 107(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (APGST Act). 2. Entitlement for Exclusion of Time Taken in Writ Proceedings from the Period of Limitation for Filing Appeal: The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to availing the writ remedy and subsequent proceedings. They sought exclusion of the period consumed in these proceedings under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The petitioner cited the case of M/s. Laxmi Srinivasa R and P Boiled Rice Mill v. State of Andhra Pradesh, where the Supreme Court allowed exclusion of time spent in writ proceedings from the limitation period for filing an appeal. The Court distinguished the current case from M/s. Laxmi Srinivasa R and P Boiled Rice Mill, noting that in the latter, the writ petition was not entertained and the appellant was directed to approach the appellate authority. In contrast, the petitioner's writ petition was entertained and disposed of with specific directions, including a conditional setting aside of the assessment order. Therefore, the principle of exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act did not apply. 3. Abuse of the Process of Court by the Petitioner: The Court emphasized that once the petitioner chose to file a writ petition and it was entertained, they could not later file an appeal against the same order to avoid compliance with the writ court's directions. This would constitute an abuse of the process of the Court. The Court cited K. K. Modi v. K. N. Modi, where relitigation of the same issue, which had already been decided, was deemed an abuse of the process of the Court. The Court concluded that the petitioner's actions amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court, as they were attempting to bypass the writ court's order, which had been affirmed by the Supreme Court. The petitioner was not entitled to exclusion of time or condonation of delay based on the filing of the writ petition. Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed, and the Court imposed costs of Rs. 1,00,000 on the petitioner for abusing the process of the Court. The costs were to be paid to the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee within 15 days, failing which the Registrar General was directed to take steps to recover the amount.
|
