Promise Manpower Service Limited vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Held

The Court held that it is not appropriate for the High Court, in its extraordinary Writ jurisdiction, to issue directions that contravene statutory provisions. Specifically, when a period of limitation is prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST Act for filing an appeal, the Court cannot direct the Appellate Authority to entertain an appeal presented beyond that prescribed period. The Court found the Writ Petition to be without merit because it sought a direction contrary to the law. Therefore, the petition was dismissed, and the pending application was also closed.

Facts

The Petitioner, Promise Manpower Service Limited, filed a Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court seeking to quash a Show Cause Notice dated May 17, 2024, and an Order-in-Original (OIO) passed on August 16, 2024. Additionally, the Petitioner prayed for a direction to the Appellate Authority to entertain and decide their appeal, even though it was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The Petitioner sought relief under the extraordinary Writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its extraordinary Writ jurisdiction, can issue directions to the Appellate Authority to entertain an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST Act? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner sought a direction from the High Court to compel the Appellate Authority to accept and decide their appeal, implicitly arguing that the Writ Court has the power to grant such relief despite the delay. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the Revenue or Respondents regarding the Petitioner's contentions. However, the Court's reasoning suggests that the Revenue would likely rely on the statutory provisions governing limitation periods.