9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 i.e., four years after the date on which the orders against which the appeal was sought to be filed had been issued. This Court cannot, normally, in the exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India extend the time limit for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Acts. This is clear from the law laid down in SINGH ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAMSHEDPUR [ 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] . The issue was considered in the context of Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 in KETAN V. PAREKH VERSUS SPECIAL DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND ANOTHER. [ 2011 (11) TMI 62 - SUPREME COURT] - The judgment in Ketan V. Parekh is also authority for the proposition that though S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re on record as Ext.P1 series were all issued on 11.2.2020 and 12.2.2020. According to the petitioner, certain returns were filed later (after the period set out in Section 62) for the period in respect of which Ext.P1 series of orders were issued. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was advised bed rest on account of a 'fatty liver' problem and therefore the petitioner could not file any appeal against Ext.P1 series of orders in time and could file the appeal only in the month of December 2023. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioner by the orders on record as Exts.P3(a) and P3(b) finding that the appeals were time-barred. The petitioner is thus before this Court seeking the following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eason submitted by the petitioner is that he was taking treatment for fatty liver disease and therefore he was advised bed rest. It is submitted that the medical certificate itself is doubtful. It is submitted that no ground has been made out for interference and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out any ground for grant of relief in this writ petition. Admittedly, the petitioner filed appeals against Ext.P.1 series of orders only in the month of February 2024 i.e., four years after the date on which the orders against which the appeal was sought to be filed had been issued. This Court canno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2008) 3 SCC 70, CCE Customs v. Punjab Fibres Ltd. (2008) 3 SCC 73, Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v. Irrigation Deptt., (2008) 7 SCC 169, CCE Customs v. Hongo India (P) Ltd., (2009) 5 SCC 791 and Chhattisgarh SEB v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, (2010) 5 SCC 23 The judgment in Ketan V. Parekh (supra) is also authority for the proposition that though Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 may not apply, the benefit of Section 14 of that Act can be extended in appropriate cases. It is only when the Court finds certain extraordinary circumstances that prevented the petitioner from filing an appeal within time, the Court will exercise such jurisdiction (in rare cases) and direct that the petitioner should be permitted to contest a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of the High Court to do complete justice , which power has been invoked in some cases by this Court to alter the punishment/penalty where the one awarded has been regarded as disproportionate, but denied to the High Courts. No doubt, Article 142 of the Constitution has specifically conferred the power of doing complete justice on this Court, to achieve which result it may pass such decree or order as deemed necessary; it would be wrong to think that other Courts are not to do complete justice between the parties. If the power of modification of punishment/penalty were to be available to this Court only under Article 142, a very large percentage of litigants would be denied this small relief merely because they are not in a position to ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being no provision in the Constitution parallel to Article 137 conferring power of review on the High Court, this Court held as early as 1961 in Shivdeo Singh s case [Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (1963) SC 1909] that the High Courts too can exercise power of review, which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction. I would say that power to do complete justice also inheres in every court, not to speak of a Court of plenary jurisdiction like a High Court. Of course, this power is not as wide as which this Court has under Article 142. That, however, is a different matter . 5. Taking cue from the observations of the Supreme Court in B.C. Chaturvedi (supra), I am of the view that, in the extraordinary and special circumstances of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
