2025 (2) TMI 1159

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC that this petition is not liable to be entertained. Otherwise, it will be against the scheme and intention of the statutory provision. The O.I.O. dated 24.04.2024 contained physical signature and it is issued within the limitation period which was extended upto 30.04.2024. DRC-07 is only a 'summary of order' and even if it did not contain any signature, it will not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. The petitioner can avail the remedy under the relevant statute, if law so permits - petition dismissed.
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA FOR THE PETITIONER : SHAIK JEELANI BASHA FOR THE RESPONDENT : DOMINIC FERNANDES SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL F .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... LAXO SMITH KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LIMITED (2020) 19 SCC 681, it is submitted that the petitioner could have preferred an appeal within ninety (90) days extendable by thirty (30) days under the GST Act. The petitioner has not filed the petition within aforesaid time. This point is considered by the Apex Court to the aforesaid case and in view of principles laid down therein this petition may not be entertained. 6. We have heard the parties at length. 7. The Apex Court in GLAXO SMITH KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE's case (supra) opined as under: "19. We may now revert to the Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Electronics Corpn. of India Ltd. [Electronics Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 21 : .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mitation period of 60 days prescribed under Section 31 of the 2005 Act, the High Court cannot disregard the statutory period for redressal of the grievance and entertain the writ petition of such a party as a matter of course. Doing so would be in the teeth of the principle underlying the dictum of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in ONGC [ONGC v. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corpn. Ltd., (2017) 5 SCC 42 : (2017) 3 SCC (Civ) 47] In other words, the fact that the High Court has wide powers, does not mean that it would issue a writ which may be inconsistent with the legislative intent regarding the dispensation explicitly prescribed under Section 31 of the 2005 Act. That would render the legislative scheme and intention behind the stated prov .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X