M/S. Sri Jayanth Engineering Company vs. The Union Of INDIA

following: ORDER Mr. Arun petitioners. Kumar Satyavolu, learned counsel appears for the ltlr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior iltanding Central Board of lndirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) respondents No.2 to 5. Counsel for appears for Thls interlocutory application has been filed tt review the judgment dated 30.a3.2026, passed by this Court in W.p.No.93'56 of 2026. One of the grounds raised by the petitioners ts that the writ petition Lvas dlsmlssed as not maintainable taking note of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Asslstant Commissioner (Court) LTu, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Heatth Care Limited [(2020) 1g SCC 681]. Learned counsel for the petitioners has atso sought to agitate the plea relating to invocation of the extended period of rirnitation under section 74(1) of the centrat Goods and services Tax Act, 2017 (for shor,the Act,).

It, however, appears that the writ petition was not dismissed merely by relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (supra), which was cited by the respondents. The submissions of learned counsel for respondents No.3 and4weretakennoteofinpara3oftheimpugnedorder.Theplearelating to wrongful invocation of extended period of limitation under section 74(1) of the Act, fhus, ls not an error apparent on the face of the record but a questiontouchingthemeritsoftheimpugnedjudgment'whichcannotbe gone into in this review application Therefore, after some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks libefty to file an appeal against the impugned order-in-original dated l3.ll.2024.Hesubmitsthatsincethewritpetitionwa ismissed,the petitioners could not invoke the appellate remedy' This Coutt has, in similar circumstances, granted liberty to the partiestopreferanappealatongwithadetaycondonotionapplicationand statutory pre-deposit such as in W.P.No.10159 of 2026' Learned Standing Counsel for CBIC has supported the impugned judgment. However, on the prayer for tiberly to the petitioners to file an appeal, he does not have any obiection' He submits that it is for the petitioners to explain the detay taking all grounds in the delay condonation application. lnviewoftheaforesaidfactsandcircumstances,thoughwedonot find any ground to review the impugned iudgment, in view of the prayer on behatf of the petitioners, liberty is granted to the petitioners to file an appeal before the appeltate authority within a period of two weeks along with a delay condonation application and statutory pre-deposit' Need/ess to say' the appellate authority would consider the question of delay taking into account the aforesaid facts and circumstances and if it is saflsfled with the explanation furnished in the detay condonation application' proceed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law'

To, It is made clear that the observations, if an5t, made on the merits of lhe case would not influence such decision of the appellate authority. Review l.A.No.3 of 2026 is, accordingly. disposed of. //// A.H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

HIGH COURT DATED: 2010712026 ORDER REVIEW l.A.No.3 OF 2026 IN WP.No.9356 of 2026 ORDERING THE I.A ioi]' lrlE Sfa 14: Jo 31 ,lutznr. .t .Oes,,arcrtED 6( zo .\ t) * 6,,1 : "y (