9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f December 2023 i.e., almost 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. There is yet another aspect of the matter. Though Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not fix any period of limitation for the filing of a writ petition, it is settled law that a writ petition can be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. As already observed the orders issued by the adjudicating authority were issued in the month of February 2020. This Writ Petition has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an appeal only in the month of December 2023 with an inordinate delay of almost 4 years considering that the orders of the Adjudicating Authority were issued in the month of February 2020. It is submitted that going by the provisions of Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Acts, no appeal could be maintained at the time when the petitioner attempted to file an appeal. It is submitted that no ground has been made out for the exercise of jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India to enable the petitioner to file an appeal beyond the time specified by Section 107 of CGST/SGST Acts. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out any ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er period not exceeding sixty days. . 18. The question whether the High Court can entertain an appeal under Section 35 of the Act beyond 120 days does not require much debate and has to be answered against the appellants in view of the law laid down in Union of India v. Popular Construction Co., (2001) 8 SCC 470, Singh Enterprises v. CCE (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 no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er. The concurring judgment of B. L. HANSARIA, J, in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (UOI) and Others; AIR 1996 SC 484 , holds thus: 21. I am in respectful agreement with all the conclusions reached by learned brother Ramaswamy, J. This concurring note is to express my view on two facets of the case. The first of these relates to the power 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 de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Article 142 relating to the High Courts, can be no ground to think that they have not to do complete justice, and if moulding of relief would do complete justice between the parties, the same cannot be ordered. Absence of provision like Article 142 is not material, according to me. This may be illustrated by pointing out that despite there 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Constitution of India does not fix any period of limitation for the filing of a writ petition, it is settled law that a writ petition can be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. As already observed the orders issued by the adjudicating authority were issued in the month of February 2020. This Writ Petition has been filed only in the year 2024. That is another reason to decline relief. The petitioner has failed to approach this Court within a reasonable time. 5. The contention of the petitioner that he was sick and advised bed rest due to fatty liver disease has to be taken with a pinch of suspicion. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition fails, and it is accordingly dismissed. - - TaxTMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
