M/S. Morya Facility Management Service PVT. LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

Held

The Court held that the writ petition could not be entertained. The Petitioner's argument that the High Court could direct the condonation of delay under Article 226 of the Constitution, contrary to the legislative mandate of the GST Act, was rejected. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner(CT)LTU, Kakinanda and Ors v M/s. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd, which held that once proceedings are barred by limitation under a statute, the legislative mandate cannot be overcome by issuing a writ under Article 226. The reasoning was that the GST Act provides specific time limits for appeals, and the Limitation Act, Section 5, is explicitly excluded. Therefore, the High Court cannot override this statutory bar through its writ jurisdiction. The issue of whether the specific period exclusion order from the Supreme Court applied to the GST appeal was considered, but the ultimate dismissal was based on the principle that statutory limitation periods cannot be circumvented by writ powers.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. Morya Facility Management Service Pvt Ltd, challenged an order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals-I), Central Tax, CGST, Pune. The Appellate Authority dismissed the Petitioner's appeal as time-barred under Section 107(1) & (4) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017. The Petitioner argued that certain periods of limitation should be excluded based on a Supreme Court order in Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 03 of 2020, which excluded periods for instituting judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. The Appellate Authority considered this but still found the appeal time-barred, noting that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to GST appeals.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the Petitioner's appeal as time-barred, despite the Supreme Court's order excluding certain periods for instituting proceedings? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the Supreme Court's order in Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 03 of 2020, concerning the exclusion of limitation periods due to the pandemic, should have been applied. They contended that the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, could direct the Appellate Authority to condone the delay and set aside the original authority's order. The Petitioner relied on the principle that constitutional powers can be exercised to grant relief in such circumstances. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the Revenue. However, it reflects the Appellate Authority's finding that even with the exclusion of the period from 15 March 2020 to 28 February 2022, the appeal remained time-barred. The Appellate Authority also noted that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to GST appeals.