TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 883X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not filed statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Act of 2017. Since the limitation of filing appeal has already expired, the petitioner now cannot prefer appeal against the impugned order. Now, the question is whether this Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can entertain writ petition challenging the impugned order on the ground that limitation period for filing statutory appeal has already expired? - The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the impugned order was passed on 16.2.2022 and per Section 107 of the Act of 2017, limitation provided for challenging the impugned order by way of appeal is 30 days and that limitation period could be extended by the appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner, Circle Jaisalmer, Jodhpur-I Ward-I, whereby a demand of Rs. 15,10,570/- was assessed while exercising powers under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short the Act of 2017 ) and the petitioner was directed to pay the same by 17.5.2022 with a warning that in case the aforesaid amount is not paid, proceedings shall be initiated against him to recover the outstanding dues. (2) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a proprietor-firm in the name and style of Desert Gateway Resorts, which is engaged in hospitality sector and having its registration under the Act of 2017. On 29.12.2021, the respondents have issued an intimation letter informing the petitioner of the tax ascertained as being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a bare perusal of the same, it is clear that no such reasons have been provided in the impugned order, which results in violation of the principles of natural justice and right of fair hearing and therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. (5) In support of the above, learned counsel Mr. Kothari has relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court rendered in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada Ors. Vs. M/s. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (Civil Appeal No.2413/2020 arising out of SLP(C) No. 12892/2019 and decision of Madras High Court rendered in W.P.No.28415 of 2022 decided on 16.11.2022. (6) In response to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents have filed reply to the wri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax and Others Vs. M/s Commercial Steel Limited (Civil Appeal No. 5121 of 2021 arising out of SLP(C) No. 13639 of 2021 @ D No. 11555 of 2020) and The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Greatship (India) Limited (Civil Appeal No. 4956 of 2022 ). (10) Mr. Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the order impugned is a non speaking order and has not complied with the provisions of Section 73 of the Act of 2017, this writ petition is very much maintainable as the impugned order is violation of principles of natural justice. Mr. Kothari has further submitted that the limitation for filing appeal under Section 107 of the Act of 2017 has already expired and now the petitioner cannot prefer appeal before the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23 i.e. almost after eight months of expiry of limitation period. (15) We are of the view that after expiry of the limitation period of filing appeal, the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order is not maintainable. This view of us is getting support from the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court rendered in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada Ors. (supra), which is also relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner. (16) The Hon ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada Ors. s case (supra) has held as under : 14. A priori, we have no hesitation in taking the view that what this Court cannot do in exercise of its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constituti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere no procedure is specified. The High Court may accede to such a challenge and can also non-suit the petitioner on the ground that alternative efficacious remedy is available and that be invoked by the writ petitioner. However, if the writ petitioner chooses to approach the High Court after expiry of the maximum limitation 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 Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (supra). In other words, the fact that the High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
