Jatinder Singh Vs Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir through Commissioner/Secretary (Jammu & Kashmir High Court)
Conclusion: Appellate authority could not condone delay beyond four months under section 107 and this discretion conferred upon the appellate authority was restricted to condoning the delay only for a maximum period of one month. Moreso, power vested in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was extraordinary in nature and might be exercised in a particular case to ensure that the procedural laws did not cause miscarriage of justice. Assessee had not made out a case of exceptional nature as would warrant exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to condone the delay despite their being clear prohibition to do so under Section 107(4).
Held: Assessee was registered under Jammu & Kashmir Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [“the Act of 2017”] under different registration numbers. They were assessed by the respective adjudicating authority under Section 73/74 of the Act of 2017 and certain demands were raised against them. Feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved by the orders passed by the adjudicating authorities, the petitioners preferred statutory appeals before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Act of 2017. The appeals preferred by the petitioners-assessees were not entertained and rejected indicating the reason for rejection as “delay in submission of appeals”. Since the Government was yet to constitute Appellate Tribunal, as such, the petitioners, feeling aggrieved by rejection of their appeals, are before us invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. submitted that in the absence of specific exclusion of applicability of the Limitation Act, Section 29 of the Limitation Act would come into play and the Appellate Authority would be well within its power to condone the delay even beyond the period of four months by exercising its jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Whether the Appellate Authority under Subsection (4) of Section 107 of the Act of 2017 is competent to condone the delay in filing an appeal against a decision or order passed under the Act by an adjudicating authority beyond a period of one months after the expiry of three months’ period prescribed for filing appeal under Subsection (1) of Section 107 of the Act of 2017. It was held that charging provisions would require literal or strict construction whereas machinery provision and the provisions for appeals and limitation period may not require strict or literal constructions. The principle always lean in favour of advancing the cause of justice where a clear case is made out for so doing, since justice and reasoning is at the heart of all legislation. this Court in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not, on the drop of hat, exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and do something which is specifically prohibited by a statute or legislative enactment. Doing so without there being exceptional circumstances would render such statute or legislative enactment otiose. However, as stated above, the power vested in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary in nature and may be exercised in a particular case to ensure that the procedural laws do not cause miscarriage of justice. Assessee had not made out a case of exceptional nature as would warrant exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to condone the delay despite their being clear prohibition to do so under Section 107(4).
