M/S R. K. Associates And Hoteliers PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner (Appeals)

Facts

The appellants, M/s. Brandavan Food Products, M/s. R.K. Associates and Hoteliers Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Satyam Caterers Pvt. Ltd., were issued show cause notices proposing to tax the supply of newspapers as 'outdoor catering service' and bed-rolls as 'business support service' under the Finance Act, 1994. The appellants contended that these supplies did not fall under the definitions of the services proposed. Their explanations were rejected, and assessment proceedings were finalized. Statutory appeals were filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) with a delay of 253 days. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals for being filed beyond the condonable period of delay. Similar dismissals occurred before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and subsequently before the learned Single Judge of the High Court, who dismissed the writ petitions on the ground of delay, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur.

Held

The High Court held that the interference declined by the statutory authorities and the learned Single Judge to entertain the merit of the case due to the appeal being filed beyond the maximum time limit stipulated under the statute, even after the condonable extent of delay, was correct. The Court found that the issue was no longer res integra, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, and later, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited & Others. The Court emphasized that once a statute prescribes a specific period of limitation and a maximum period for condoning delay, the High Court cannot condone delay beyond that extent by invoking powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, as this would amount to rewriting the law and would be contrary to the binding verdicts of the Apex Court under Article 141 of the Constitution. The Court found no answer from the appellants to the law declared by the three-member Bench of the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (supra). The plea regarding the demise of the mother was not considered sufficient to cover the inordinate delay of 253 days, especially as the appellant was admittedly carrying on commercial activities during that period. Therefore, the Court concluded that the verdict of the learned Single Judge was perfectly within the bounds of law and not assailable. All appeals were dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, can condone a delay in filing an appeal beyond the maximum period stipulated in the statute, even if the delay exceeds the statutorily permissible condonable extent? 2. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petitions solely on the ground of delay, without considering the merits of the case, particularly in light of the alleged extraordinary circumstances explaining the delay? Petitioner/Appellant's arguments: The appellants argued that the High Court's power under Article 226 is wide enough to grant relief on merits, and technical grounds like delay should not be a bar. They contended that the delay was attributable to extraordinary circumstances, including the demise of the mother of the authorized signatory and personal family events. They also referred to a previous High Court decision in M/s. Shri Sai Rolling Mill v. The Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax & Others, where a matter was remitted back to the authority for consideration. Respondent/Revenue's arguments: The respondents relied on the statutory provisions limiting the condonable period of delay and the Supreme Court's judgment in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, which held that statutory appeals filed beyond the prescribed period, even with delay, cannot be entertained. They also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited & Others, which reiterated that the Apex Court cannot condone delay beyond the statutory limit even under Article 142.