Mayuresh Enterprises Thr Proprietor vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST And Ors

Held

The Court held that the Commissioner's decision to not condone the delay was in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court. The Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited had clearly held that delay cannot be condoned if it falls beyond the maximum condonable period, and that neither Article 142 nor Article 226 jurisdiction can be exercised to defeat the statutory regime. The Bombay High Court in Oriental Export Corporation vs. Union of India had also held that a writ petition is not maintainable when a statutory remedy has not been availed within the prescribed limitation. Therefore, the Commissioner's refusal to condone the delay, despite acknowledging the pandemic-related extensions, was found to be correct as the appeal was filed beyond the permissible extended period. The Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Mayuresh Enterprises, challenged an order dated March 30, 2023, passed by the Commissioner. The Commissioner refused to condone a delay of 30 days in filing an appeal. The petitioner argued that the delay should be condoned considering the extension of limitation periods during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Commissioner, while acknowledging the Supreme Court's decision on pandemic-related extensions, concluded that even after accounting for the excluded period and a further 90-day grace period, the appeal was filed beyond the permissible time. The petitioner had not filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) within the prescribed limitation period.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Commissioner was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 30 days in filing the appeal, considering the Supreme Court's directions regarding the extension of limitation periods during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the provisions of the relevant statute? The petitioner contended that the delay should have been condoned in light of the Supreme Court's directives extending limitation periods during the pandemic. They relied on the principle that such extensions were intended to provide relief to assessees. The respondents (Deputy Commissioner CGST & Ors and the State) argued that the Commissioner's decision was correct. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, which held that delay cannot be condoned if it exceeds the maximum condonable period, and that High Courts cannot exercise powers under Article 226 to undermine statutory regimes. They also cited a Bombay High Court decision in Oriental Export Corporation vs. Union of India, stating that a writ petition cannot be sustained if a statutory remedy was not availed within the prescribed limitation.