9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no interference is called for in the impugned orders - petition dismissed. - Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal, J. For the Petitioner :- Syed Mohd. Khalid For the Respondent :- C.S.C. ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. By means of present petition, the petitioners are, inter alia, praying for the following relief:- i. Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to qauash the order dated 25.6.2024 and 19.1.2023 passed by reespondent no. 2 (Annexure 1 and 2 to this writ petition). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioners are doing the business of cosmetic for which they have obtained the GSTIN No. 09BSJPG9310F2ZQ, which has been cancelled on certain ground vide order dated 28.12.2022 passed by respondent no. 2 and when the order was served upon the petitioner, he has moved a revocation application on 7.1.2023 but the same has also been rejected vide order dated 19.1.2023. He further submits that being aggrieved to the said order, the petitioners have preferred an appeal, which has been dismissed as time barred vide order dated 25.6.2024. 4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has support ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the position crystal clear that the appellate authority has no power to allow the appeal to be presented beyond the period of 30 days. The language used makes the position clear that the legislature intended the appellate authority to entertain the appeal by condoning delay only up to 30 days after the expiry of 60 days which is the normal period for preferring appeal. Therefore, 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. 9. Further, the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited [2020 (36) GSTL 305 (SC)] has held as under:- 11. In the backdrop of these facts, the central question is: whether the High Court ought to have entertained the writ petition filed by the respondent? As regards the power of the High Court to issue directions, orders or writs in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the same is no more res integra. Even though the High Court can entertain a writ petition against any order or d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... force which the writ is claimed. The High Court does not therefore act as a court of appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal, to correct errors of fact, and does not by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 trench upon an alternative remedy provided by statute for obtaining relief. Where it is open to the aggrieved petitioner to move another tribunal, or even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High Court normally will not permit by entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the machinery created under the statute to be bypassed, and will leave the party applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up. (emphasis supplied) We may usefully refer to the exposition of this Court in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. Anr. Vs. State of Orissa Ors. 11, wherein it is observed that where a right or liability is created by a statute, which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute must only be availed of. In paragraph 11, the Court observed thus: 11. Under the scheme of the Act, there is a hierarchy of authorities before which the petitioners can get adequate redre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... slative intent manifested in the provisions of the Act and would exercise its jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the enactment. To put it differently, the fact that the High Court has wide jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, does not mean that it can disregard the substantive provisions of a statute and pass orders which can be settled only through a mechanism prescribed by the statute. 15. We may now revert to the Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. (supra), which had adopted the view taken by the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Panoli Intermediate (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India Ors.19 and also of the Karnataka High Court in Phoenix Plasts Company vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (AppealI), Bangalore20. The logic applied in these decisions proceeds on fallacious premise. For, these decisions are premised on the logic that provision such as Section 31 of the 1995 Act, cannot curtail the jurisdiction of the High Court underArticles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. This approach is faulty. It is not a matter of taking away the jurisdiction of the High Court. In a given case, the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atutory authorities and other organs of the State act in accordance with law. It is not to be invoked whereby authorities are directed to act contrary to law. Wherever, the extent of condonable period is specifically prescribed by a statute, it would not be appropriate even under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution to entertain the writ petition so as to breach the express provision in the statute and act contrary to the mandate of the legislature. It is for the legislature to prescribe the limits or not to do so for condoning the delay. Exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India would amount to doing violence to the statutory provision and rendering the same otiose. In other words, the legislative intent is clear that the Parliament never intended that delay beyond specified period in filing the appeal could be condoned. It is not for the High Court to rewrite the statute in the garb of exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. The view which has been expressed by us herein above, is supported by various judicial precedents. 11. This Court in the case of M/s Abhishek Trading Corporation Vs. Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
