2024 (10) TMI 134 - HC - GST

Condonation of delay in filing the appeal - invocation of extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that after issuance of show cause notice, impugned order dated 22.03.2022 was passed against which, the appeal should have been preferred within limitation, but the appeal has been preferred beyond the limitation - Further, before this Court also, petitioner has failed to give any good ground for condonation of delay, therefore, this Court, under extra ordinary jurisdiction, cannot interfere with the impugned orders. The Apex Court in the case of SINGH ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAMSHEDPUR 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT has specifically held ' there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Commissioner and the High Court were therefore justified in holding that there was no power to condone the delay after the expiry of 30 days' period.' Thus, no interference is called for in the impugned orders - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the impugned orders dated 21.05.2024 and 22.03.2022.
2. Restoration of GST registration of the petitioner firm.
3. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of the Impugned Orders Dated 21.05.2024 and 22.03.2022:
The petitioner sought to quash the orders dated 21.05.2024 and 22.03.2022 issued by the Additional Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of State Goods and Services Tax, respectively. The petitioner argued that the show cause notice was received belatedly, preventing a timely response, which led to the cancellation of the GST registration. The appeal against the cancellation was also rejected without considering the material on record.

2. Restoration of GST Registration:
The petitioner requested the restoration of its GST registration, arguing that the firm is engaged in providing security and canteen services to various institutions and was duly registered under the UPGST Act, 2017. The cancellation of the registration was contested on the grounds of procedural delays and lack of consideration of the material facts during the appeal.

3. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The respondent argued that the appeal was rightfully dismissed as it was filed beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 107 of the Act. The petitioner failed to provide a proper explanation for the delay. The court observed that the appeal should have been filed within the limitation period, and the petitioner did not present any substantial ground for condonation of delay.

The court cited the Apex Court's judgment in *Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Jamshedpur*, which held that statutory authorities do not have the jurisdiction to condone delays beyond the permissible period provided under the statute. The court emphasized that the legislative intent is clear in restricting the condonable period.

4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution:
The court referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in *Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited*, which clarified that while the High Court has wide jurisdiction under Article 226, it should exercise self-imposed restraint and not entertain writ petitions when an alternative effective remedy is available. The court reiterated that the High Court should not bypass statutory remedies provided by the legislature.

The court also referred to the case of *State of Haryana Vs. Hindustan Machine Tools Limited*, which held that invoking Articles 226/227 to condone delays beyond the statutory period would be contrary to legislative intent and would render statutory provisions otiose.

In conclusion, the court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned orders and dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and remedies prescribed by law.