The High Court cannot entertain a writ petition filed beyond the statutory limitation period for appeals as prescribed by special legislation, reaffirming established precedents.

JUDGMENT :

Shekhar B. Saraf, J.

1. Heard Ms. Anjali Jha Manish, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Gaurav Mahajan, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Mr. Arvind Kumar Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order in original dated January 1, 2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Division -I, NOIDA. The prayers made out in the above writ petition are delineated below:

"A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the Order In Original bearing No.84/AC/CGST/Div-I/N/2024-25 dated January 31, 2025 passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Division-I, Noida; and/or.

B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the Show Cause Notice dated 23.02.2022 issued by the Learned Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Division -I Noida and/or C. Stay the operation of impugned Order in Original bearing No.84/AC/CGST/Div-I/N/2024-25 dated 31.01.2025, passed by the Learned Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Division -I, Noida, during the pendency of the present petition;

D. Interim and ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses as above;"

3. Upon perusal of the record, it is clear that the impugned order was passed on January 31, 2025, while the writ petition was filed on July 3, 2025. It is to be noted that Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), provides for a statutory appeal against the order passed under Section 74 of the Act. The period prescribed therein is three months. By way of sub-section (4) to Section 107 of the Act, if sufficient cause is shown, the period may be extended for a month. As the Act provides for a specific period for filing of appeal and also provides for an extended period, if sufficient cause is shown for condoning the delay in filing of the appeal, Section 29(2) of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963 would be applicable. Section 29(2) of the LIMITATION ACT reads as under:

“29. Savings.—

(1) .....

(2) Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law. (3) Save as otherwise provided in any law for the time being in force with respect to marriage and divorce, nothing in this Act shall apply to any suit or other proceeding under any such law. (4) Sections 25 and 26 and the definition of “easement” in section 2 shall not apply to cases arising in the territories to which the Indian Easements Act, 1882 (5 of 1882), may for the time being extend.”

Ergo, Section 29(2) clearly excludes the application of Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT for the purpose of condonation of delay in special statutes.

4. It is admitted by the petitioner that the petitioner was served by registered email on the very same date of passing of the impugned order. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, submits that there was no service made to the petitioner by way of registered post.

5. Upon perusal of Section 169 of the Act, we are of the view that in the event the service is made by way of the registered email, the same woul