Pandidorai Sethupathi Raja VS Superintendent Of Central Tax

The order, issued among a group of 44 writ petitions, follows a series of prior orders in similar cases. These petitions collectively challenge decisions made by either the Central or State Commercial Tax Authorities. The underlying cause of action remains consistent across these petitions. This order represents a continuation of the legal proceedings initiated by petitioners seeking redressal for perceived grievances against the tax authorities.

This particular order, part of a group of 44 writ petitions, builds upon previous rulings made in similar cases. The petitioners across these cases are contesting decisions made by either the Central or State Commercial Tax Authorities under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, or the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST/TNGST). These decisions include orders canceling registrations, as well as appellate authorities’ rulings rejecting appeals due to their filing being deemed untimely

This order, part of a group of 44 writ petitions, follows a series of previous orders in similar cases. The petitioners challenge orders issued by either Central or State Commercial Tax Authorities under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 or Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. These orders either cancel their registration or reject appeals against such cancellations due to alleged delays in filing. Previous court decisions have granted leniency in restoring canceled registrations under certain conditions, but the issue persists with continuous filings of writ petitions.

Referring to previous judgments, the court, in M.Mallika Mahal vs. The Commissioner of Central GST, held a similar view to that of a learned Single Judge in a previous case. They suggested granting petitioners the benefit of a Supreme Court judgment regarding the extension of limitation for filing appeals or seeking remedies due to pandemic-related difficulties, as noted in the case of In Re: Cognizance for extension of limitation, Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020.

This lengthy order, stemming from a collection of 44 writ petitions, is part of a series of legal actions related to challenges against orders issued by the Central/State Commercial Tax Authorities under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 or Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as well as appeals against orders canceling registrations due to delayed appeals.

Previous court decisions have shown leniency towards petitioners in similar situations, allowing for restoration of canceled registrations under certain conditions. However, despite these precedents, the filing of writ petitions has persisted.

In a previous case, M.Mallika Mahal vs. The Commissioner of Central GST, the court took a stance similar to that of a learned Single Judge, allowing petitioners to benefit from a Supreme Court judgment regarding the extension of statutory appeal deadlines due to pandemic-related difficulties. This extension lasted until May 29, 2022.

Now, the court agrees with the stance presented by the Central and State GST Departments’ standing counsel that the benefit of registration restoration cannot be indefinitely available to petitioners. Both the Central and State GST Authorities have filed counters supporting this position.

It’s established that statutory revisional/appellate remedies come with specific time limitations, and authorities cannot exceed these prescribed periods. While there has been deliberation on whether High Courts, under Article 226 of the Constitution, can extend these periods, the general stance, as indicated by both Supreme and High Courts, is in the negative.

This lengthy summary pertains to an order issued in a batch of 44 writ petitions, which are part of a series of similar cases challenging orders made by Central/State Commercial Tax Authorities under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 or Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitions involve challenges to orders cancelling registrations or rejecting appeals due to late filing.

Previously, the court had granted leniency to petitioners in similar situations, allowing restoration of cancelled registrations under certain conditions. However, despite these measures, petitions continue to be filed.

Referring to previous cases, the court emphasizes the importance of adhering to statutory limitations for filing appeals or seeking revision. While Article 226 grants wide jurisdiction to courts to ensure substantial justice, it’s generally understood that courts shouldn’t exceed statutory time limits. However, exceptions can be made based on the circumstances of each case. Courts may condone delays if the reasons provided are deemed valid.

This principle has been reinforced by the Supreme Court in cases such as Assistant Commissioner (CT) Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited. The court reiterates this stance and highlights its application in previous cases concerning commercial tax assessments.

Overall, the summary outlines the court’s approach to addressing delays in availing statutory remedies, emphasizing the need for valid reasons and discretion in granting relief.

This order, part of a series of 44 writ petitions, deals with challenges against orders issued by Central/State Commercial Tax Authorities under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 or Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as well as orders of appellate authorities rejecting appeals on the grounds of belated filing. The court acknowledges previous decisions granting leniency to petitioners in similar situations but notes the continuous filing of such petitions.

Referring to earlier judgments, the court recognizes the difficulties posed by the pandemic in meeting statutory deadlines for filing appeals. It mentions the Supreme Court’s extension of limitation for filing appeals and endorses the stance that the benefit of restoration of registration cannot be indefinitely available to petitioners.

The court emphasizes that statutory remedies have prescribed limitations, beyond which authorities cannot act. However, it acknowledges the wide jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, allowing courts to deliver substantial justice. While recognizing the norm against exceeding statutory limitations, exceptions may be made based on the circumstances leading to the delay in availing statutory remedies.

This position is supported by a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited. The court reflects on differing opinions nationwide regarding whether writ petitions challenging assessment orders, when statutory remedies and time frames are in place, should be entertained. It acknowledges the debate between those advocating for strict adherence to statutory limitations and those favoring a broader interpretation of Article 226.

In essence, the court’s decision reflects a balancing act between respecting statutory limitations and exercising judicial discretion to ensure fairness and justice in individual cases.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: