Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 35187
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
GOPINATH P, J
BAIJU GEORGE – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF GOODS AND SERVICE TAXES – Respondent
WP(C) 33866/2024
MOOSA E.S.
The court ruled that excessive delay in filing appeals under the CGST/SGST Acts cannot be condoned without extraordinary circumstances, reaffirming strict adherence to statutory time limits.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - CGST/SGST Acts - Section 62 - Delay in filing appeals - Petitioner sought to condone delay in filing appeals against assessment orders issued in February 2020, citing health issues as justification - Court held that the delay of four years was inordinate and no extraordinary circumstances were established to warrant relief - Cited Singh Enterprises v. CCE (2008) 3 SCC 70 and Ketan V. Parekh v. Enforcement Directorate (2011) 15 SCC 30 regarding limitations on appeal filing - Writ petition dismissed. (Paras 4, 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner failed to file appeals against assessment orders issued under Section 62 of the CGST/SGST Acts within the stipulated time due to health issues, leading to a four-year delay.
Findings of Court:
The Court found no grounds for granting relief due to the excessive delay and lack of extraordinary circumstances.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner could be allowed to file appeals after a significant delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the delay was excessive and that the petitioner did not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances justifying the late filing of appeals.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner suffered certain orders under Section 62 of the CGST/SGST Acts . These orders which are on record as Ext.P1 series were all issued on 11.2.2020 and 12.2.2020. According to the petitioner, certain returns were filed later (after the period set out in Section 62 ) for the period in respect of which Ext.P1 series of orders were issued. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was advised bed rest on account of a 'fatty liver' problem and therefore the petitioner could not file any appeal against Ext.P1 series of orders in time and could file the appeal only in the month of December 2023. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioner by the orders on record as Exts.P3(a) and P3(b) finding that the appeals were time-barred. The petitioner is thus before this Court seeking the following reliefs:-
“I. Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, direction or order for taken the step to condone the delay of file the appeal against the Ext.P1 orders of the direction for condone the delay and here (sic) the case by the 3rd respondent.
II. To pass any other and such other orders as this Honourable court deem fit to pass to the nature and circumstances of the case.”
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court must exercise jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India to permit the petitioner to file appeals against Ext.P1 series of orders. The learned counsel also submitted that the Calcutta High Court had recently permitted the filing of an appeal by holding that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 were applicable to appeals filed under Section 107 of the West Bengal State Goods and Services Act, 2017. The learned counsel also refers to the judgment of the Supreme Court produced as Ext.P7 to contend that applications for condonation of delay must be considered liberally and without adopting a very technical approach.
3. The learned Government Pleader vehemently opposes the grant of any relief to the petitioner. It is submitted that the impugned orders in this case were issued in the month of February, 2020. It is submitted that the appeal was filed only in the month of February 2024 after an inordinate delay of about four years. It is submitted that the reason submitted by the petitioner is that he was taking treatment for fatty liver disease and therefore he was advised bed rest. It is submitted that the medical certificate itself is doubtful. It is submitted that no ground has been made out for interference and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out any ground for grant of relief in this writ petition. Admittedly, the petitioner filed appeals against Ext.P.1 series of orders only in the month of February 2024 i.e., 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 . This is clear from the law laid down inSingh Enterprises v. CCE and Ors, (2008) 3 SCC 70. The issue was considered in the context of Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 in Ketan V. Parekh v. Enforcement Directorate , (2011) 15 SCC 30 . After considering the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 it was held:-
17. Section 35 of the Act as also Sections 5 , 14 and 29(1) and (2) of the Limitation Act, which have bearing on the decision of the issue raised in the appeals, read as under:
“35. Appeal to High Court.—Any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the High Court within sixty days from the date of communication of the decision or order of the
