TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dmitting a writ petition beyond the period of limitation set out in the concerned statute. The wide powers with which the High Court is invested must not be exercised in such a way that are inconsistent with legislative intent prescribing a rigid limitation under statute. In conclusion, the Bench reverses the decision of the High Court and allows the writ appeals saying that no case have been made out either before the High Court, and no finding has been recorded by the High Court in regard to its decision for entertaining the writ petition beyond the period of statutory limitation - Article 226 of the Constitution of India is thus, elastic enough to accommodate challenges to proceedings beyond the period provided under limitation, although such discretion has to be exercised very sparingly and the situation causing the delay examined closely and minutely. The impugned orders in W.P.Nos.14720 and 14722 of 2020 are dated 13.05.2016 and 26.05.2016 and the time for filing of appeals with delay are long gone. The Writ Petitions have, however, been filed on 08.10.2020 with a delay in excess of five years. The reasons adduced in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petitions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Section 51 of the Act from the date of receipt of the orders by the petitioners. 2. In W.P.Nos.15679 and 15683 of 2020, orders of assessment have been passed on 19.03.2019 (W.P.No.15679 of 2020) and 22.03.2019 (W.P.No.15683 of 2020), served upon the petitioners on 13.03.2020 and appeals ought to have been filed on or before 12.06.2020. The Writ Petitions have been filed on 23.10.2020. In WP.No.17833, 17838, 17840 and 17844 of 2020, the date of impugned order is 13.11.2019 in respect of which due date for filing of appeal with delay is 15.04.2020. The Writ Petition has been filed on 20.11.2020. 3. In W.P.No.17525 of 2020, the impugned order is dated 18.12.2012 read with subsequent order dated 31.01.2013. The limitation for filing of statutory appeal with delay is long gone, the delay being in excess of seven years. The petitioners had claimed the benefit of input tax credit (ITC) under Section 19(11) of the Act. The representation filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.17525 of 2020 under Section 22(6) (a) of the Act had also been rejected. This petitioner had challenged the constitutional validity of Section 19(11) before this Court in W.P.No.5056 of 2014 and this writ petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent, which were returned on the ground that there was no power for condonation of delay of 236 days. The Writ Petition was filed on 01.12.2020. In the light of explanation offered by the petitioner, the delay in filing of the Writ Petition is justified and has been fully explained. 7. In all the above cases, no dispute has been raised by the revenue counsel in regard to the individual facts as well as dates and the sequence of events set out. 8. With the advent of COVID -19 pandemic, the Supreme Court, in a series of judgments viz., In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation dated 23.03.2020, 06.05.2020, 10.07.2020 and M/s.SS Group Pvt. Ltd. V. Aaditiya J. Garg another (Civil Appeal No.4085 of 2020 dated 17.12.2020) has extended time for filing of appeal till 31.01.2021. 9. The above Writ Petitions are thus allowed. The petitioners are permitted to file statutory appeals within a period of four (4) weeks from today and if the appeals are filed within the period as aforesaid, they shall be entertained by the appellate authority without reference to limitation, but subject to all other compliances including pre-deposit, and decided in accordance with law. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner. It is thus that the revenue carried the matter in appeal to the Supreme Court arguing that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction and committed a manifest error in admitting a writ petition beyond the period of limitation set out in the concerned statute. A plethora of case law on this issue was examined by the Supreme Court. 15. The cases discussed are, Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C .)); K.S. Rashid Son v. Income Tax Investigation Commission (AIR 1954 SC 207); Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of Taxes (AIR 1964 SC 1419); Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad now Zila Parishad (AIR 1969 SC 556); Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited ((2017) 5 SCC 42); Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa ((1983) 2 SCC 433. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission ((2010) 5 SCC 23); ITC Ltd. v. Union of India (1998 (101) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.)); Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Association of India ((2011) 14 SCC 337); Raja Mechanical Co. (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner (2013 (29) S.T.R. 81 (S.C.)) = (2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prescribing a rigid limitation under statute. In conclusion, the Bench reverses the decision of the High Court and allows the writ appeals saying that no case have been made out either before the High Court, and no finding has been recorded by the High Court in regard to its decision for entertaining the writ petition beyond the period of statutory limitation. 20. Article 226 of the Constitution of India is thus, elastic enough to accommodate challenges to proceedings beyond the period provided under limitation, although such discretion has to be exercised very sparingly and the situation causing the delay examined closely and minutely. 21. This then, is the basis upon which I propose to dispose this batch of Writ Petitions. I have considered the circumstances leading to the delayed challenge to the impugned orders of assessment in each case, individually. In doing so, I envisage two road blocks that the petitioners would have to cross. The first one relates to the delay occasioned in approaching this Court beyond the period of statutory limitation and explanation thereto. In my view, the explanation offered at this stage, would have to comprise of purely personal/human/me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceeding on the basis that such a request had been made before the officer, there is no justification for the petitioner to have tarried for 367 days for this purpose. The petitioner is not a small dealer, but a limited company with personnel and protocols in place for management of its finances and tax affairs. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition has itself been filed by the Manager (Tax). In such circumstances, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have been vigilant in regard to the timelines set out under statute and approach the appellate authorities in time. Hence, I find no justification for the delay of 367 days in approaching this court, and dismiss these writ petitions in limini. 26. In WP.No.120 of 2021, the impugned order in this writ petition is dated 31.03.2017 and a statutory appeal with delay ought to have been filed on or before 04.06.2017. The present writ petition has been filed on 08.12.2020 with a delay of 1282 days. The entire blame for the delay has been placed at the door step of the tax consultant, who, according to the petitioner had prepared an appeal against the impugned order and, the petitioner believed, would file the same. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
