Bombay High Court
Map Overseas Through Shivani Sharma vs Union Of India Through Secretary And Ors on 25 August, 2025
Author: M S Sonak
Bench: M.S. Sonak
2025:BHC-AS:36698-DB
30-WP-8229-2025-J-F.DOCX
Amol
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8229 OF 2025
MAP OVERSEAS
through proprietor Smt. Shivani Sharma
age 25, having office at Ground Floor,
D-8, Gorai 1, Raj Sagar C.H.S. Ltd, Plot
no 112, RSC-16, Gorai-1, Near
Suvidya School, Borivali (west),
Mumbai- 400 091. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India
through the Secretary, Ministry
of Finance (Dept of Revenue), No. 137
North Block, New Delhi - 110001.
2. State Government of Maharashtra,
through the secretary Ministry of
Finance, Finance Department,
Government of Maharashtra
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032
Digitally
signed by
AMOL
PREMNATH
AMOL
PREMNATH JADHAV 3. Assistant Commissioner,
JADHAV Date:
2025.08.26
20:18:58 Division-IV, CGST & CX.,
+0530
Thane Commissionerate
3rd floor, GST Bhavan, Ro
No.22, Wagle Industrial Estate
Thane(west), 400 604.
4. The Commissioner of CGST (Appeals)
8th Floor, 2 Cabins, 12th Floor,
B wing Half Portion, Lotus
Info Centre, Parel, Mumbai - 400012. ...Respondents
Page 1 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 26/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2025 21:22:27 :::
30-WP-8229-2025-J-F.DOCX
_____________________________________________________
Mr Shreyas Shrivastava, with Mr Saurabh R Mashalkar, for the
Petitioner.
______________________________________________________
CORAM M.S. Sonak &
Jitendra Jain, JJ.
DATED: 25 August 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT: - (Per M S Sonak, J)
1. Heard Mr Shrivastava, who appears with Mr Saurabh
Mashalkar for the Petitioner.
2. The Petitioner challenges the order in the original dated
23 May 2023, and the appellate authority's order dated 19
December 2024 by instituting this Petition.
3. As against the Order-in-Original dated 23 May 2023, the
Petitioner instituted an appeal before the appellate authority
(4th Respondent) on 17 October 2023.
4. Section 107(1) of the Central Goods and Services Act,
2017 (CGST Act) provides that any person aggrieved by an
Order-in-Original can prefer an appeal to the appellate
authority as may be prescribed within three months from the
date on which the said decision or order is communicated to
such person. Section 107(4) provides that the appellate
authority may, if he is satisfied that the Appellant was
prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal
within the prescribed period of three months, allow it to be
presented within a further period of one month.
5. In the present case, the Appeal was presented beyond
the maximum prescribed condonable period of one month, i.e,
30-WP-8229-2025-J-F.DOCX
the appeal was presented beyond the period of 120 days, i.e,
four months. Therefore, by the order dated 19 December
2023, the appeal was dismissed by invoking the bar of
limitation.
6. Mr Shrivastava now seeks to argue the challenge to the
Order-in-Original dated 23 May 2023 on merits, as if this
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was a regular
appeal against the same. He also tried to urge that the Order-
in-Original dated 23 May 2023 was never communicated to
the Petitioner, and from the date of its communication, the
appeal was within the prescribed period of limitation or, in
any event, within the maximum condonable period.
7. On perusing the appeal memo and the application for
condonation of delay, or rather, the reasons for delay, it is
evident that no case of non-communication of the order dated
23 May 2023 was made out. Certain difficulties have no doubt
been cited, but they do not relate to non-communication of
the Order-in-Original or that the period of limitation should
commence from the date of communication. In short, it is
evident from the record that the appeal was sought to be
instituted even beyond the maximum condonable period as
prescribed, i.e., beyond four months from the date of the
communication of the order. As such, we can detect no fault in
the order of 19 December 2023 by which the Petitioner's
appeal was not entertained.
8. It is well settled that this Court's extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not
be exercised by ignoring the legislative intent behind the
provisions like Section 107(1) and 107(4) of the CGST Act. In
30-WP-8229-2025-J-F.DOCX
the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors
Vs Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited 1, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained that the power of the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is wide, but
certainly not wider than the plenary powers bestowed on the
Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that even while exercising
power under Article 142, the Court is required to bear in mind
the legislative intent and not render any statutory provision
otiose. The Court held that the circumstance that the
petitioner might have a good case on merits is not a relevant
circumstance where no appeal is lodged within the maximum
condonable period.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to its decision in
ONGC vs Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited 2,
where the statutory appeal was barred by 71 days, and the
maximum time limit for condoning delay was prescribed as
only 60 days. At the stage of admission, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court had, in fact, condoned this delay. However, at the final
hearing of the appeal, an objection about the appeal being
barred on account of delay was allowed to be raised as a
jurisdictional issue, and the appeal, instituted beyond the
maximum condonable period prescribed under Section 125 of
the Electricity Act, 2003, was held as not maintainable.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that powers under
Article 226 cannot be exercised in such a situation where the
aggrieved party fails to file an appeal within the prescribed
(2020) 19 SCC 681
(2017) 5 SCC 42
30-WP-8229-2025-J-F.DOCX
period of limitation or within the maximum condonable
period as may be prescribed.
11. To the same effect is the decision of the Division Bench
of this Court in the case of Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd
Vs Union of India through Joint Secretary & Ors3, where the
Coordinate Bench observed that it is trite that when the
statute prescribes a period of limitation along with the period
for extending the period of limitation, the provisions of
Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 would not apply.
The Court noted that it has been settled by decisions of this
Court as well as of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that when the
law prescribes a period of limitation as well as an extended
period of limitation, there is no provision for condonation of
delay beyond the extended period of limitation. In such a
situation, even a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, either for challenging the appeal Court's order
declining to entertain the appeal or the original order was
entertained.
12. Therefore, applying the aforesaid principles to the facts
of the present case, we dismiss this Petition without any costs
order.
(Jitendra Jain, J) (M.S. Sonak, J)
2021 SCC OnLine Bom 6126
