Writ Cannot Revive GST Appeal Barred by Statutory Limitation: Rajasthan HC

Rudraksh Collection Vs Joint Commissioner (Appeal) (Rajasthan High Court)

Summary: Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an appellate order where the petitioner had failed to file the statutory appeal within the prescribed limitation period or even within the extended condonable period. The Court relied upon its earlier decision in Ashok Varandani Vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs & Ors., which in turn followed the Supreme Court ruling in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors. Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited. The Court reiterated that once the statutory appeal as well as the maximum condonable period has expired, the statutory remedy is no longer available and Article 226 cannot ordinarily be invoked merely to overcome that limitation. It clarified, however, that writ jurisdiction may still be exercised on limited grounds such as absence of jurisdiction, violation of statute or breach of principles of natural justice. On the facts, none of those grounds was established. The petitioner’s only explanation was that returns could not be filed in time because of personal difficulty.

The Court held that such an explanation might have been relevant before the appellate authority had an appeal been filed within the permissible period, but the writ court could not assume the jurisdiction of the appellate authority and sit over its satisfaction. The Court also rejected reliance upon other Division Bench orders directing condonation of delay or entertainment of appeals, holding that those could not prevail over the Supreme Court’s authoritative pronouncement in Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited. Addressing the submission that carrying on business or trade is a fundamental right, the Court observed that such right remains subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law and that a person carrying on business is obliged to comply with the GST Act, including return-filing requirements. Consequently, no case for interference under Article 226 was made out. The petition was dismissed, while expressly granting liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh for GST registration, which the authority was directed to consider in accordance with law. ([TaxGuru][1])