M/S.Oasys Marketing Agency vs. The Appellate Authority / Deputy Commissioner (CT)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Oasys Marketing Agency, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority/Deputy Commissioner (CT) (1st respondent). The petitioner had previously filed a writ petition (W.P.No.11512 of 2025) where this Court, by order dated 24.04.2025, granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal within two weeks and directed the respondent not to insist on the limitation period. The petitioner complied by filing the appeal, but it was rejected by the 1st respondent on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner contended that the rejection was despite the specific directions from this Court. The respondents argued that the petitioner did not mention this Court's previous order when filing the appeal, leading the 1st respondent to reject it unaware of the liberty granted.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the 1st respondent, the Appellate Authority, was to be set aside. The reasoning was based on the fact that this Court, in its previous order dated 24.04.2025 in W.P.No.11512 of 2025, had explicitly granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal within two weeks and had specifically directed the respondent not to insist upon the limitation period. Despite these clear directions, the 1st respondent rejected the appeal on the grounds of limitation. The Court found that the respondents' argument that the petitioner did not refer to the previous order was insufficient to override the explicit judicial directive. The ratio decidendi is that a statutory authority must comply with the specific directions issued by a High Court in a writ petition, and an appeal cannot be rejected on limitation if the Court has expressly waived it. The Court directed the 1st respondent to take the appeal on record, consider it on its merits, and also directed the respondents to release the attachment and de-freeze the petitioner's bank account immediately upon production of the order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority (1st respondent) erred in rejecting the petitioner's appeal on the grounds of limitation, despite this Court's specific direction in W.P.No.11512 of 2025 dated 24.04.2025 to not insist upon limitation and grant liberty to file the appeal within two weeks? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they had duly filed the appeal within the time fixed by this Court's previous order and that the rejection by the 1st respondent on the aspect of limitation was contrary to the specific directions given by this Court. They sought to quash the impugned order and direct the de-freezing of their bank account. Respondents' contention: The respondents, through the learned Additional Government Pleader, submitted that at the time of filing the appeal, the petitioner had not made any reference to this Court's order dated 24.04.2025. Consequently, the 1st respondent, being unaware of the said order, rejected the appeal on the grounds of limitation.