Sri Tutan Saha vs Vrs
2021 Latest Caselaw 942 Tri

                                  Page - 1 of 6

                        HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                              AGARTALA
                             1. W.P (C) No. 380 of 2021
Sri Tutan Saha
                                                           ............ Petitioner(s).
                                  Vrs.
The Union of India and Others.
                                                          ............ Respondent(s).

2. W.P (C) No. 381 of 2021 Sri Haradhan Saha ............ Petitioner(s).

Vrs.

The Union of India and Others.

............ Respondent(s).

3. W.P (C) No. 382 of 2021 Sri Dilip Majumder ............ Petitioner(s).

Vrs.

The Union of India and Others.

............ Respondent(s).

4. W.P (C) No. 383 of 2021 Sri Gour Gobinda Saha ............ Petitioner(s).

Vrs.

The Union of India and Others.

............ Respondent(s).

5. W.P (C) No. 384 of 2021 Sri Dilip Majumder ............ Petitioner(s).

Vrs.

The Union of India and Others.

............ Respondent(s).

6. W.P (C) No. 385 of 2021 Sri Tutan Saha ............ Petitioner(s).

Vrs.

The Union of India and Others.

............ Respondent(s).

Page - 2 of 6

7. W.P (C) No. 386 of 2021 Sri Gour Gobinda Saha ............ Petitioner(s).

Vrs.

The Union of India and Others.

............ Respondent(s).

8. W.P (C) No. 387 of 2021 Sri Haradhan Saha ............ Petitioner(s).

Vrs.

The Union of India and Others.

............ Respondent(s).

BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N. Chowdhury, Advocate.

Mr. Biplabendu Roy, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, Govt. Advocate.

Mr. K. De, Addl. Govt. Advocate.

Mr. S. Saha, Advocate.

Date of hearing and Judgment & Order : 20th September, 2021.

              Whether fit for reporting    : NO.

                         JUDGMENT AND ORDER(Oral)

(Akil Kureshi, CJ)

These petitions arise in common background. They have been

heard together and would be disposed of by this common order. Since on all

material aspects facts are similar, we may refer to those arising in W.P(C)

No.380 of 2021.

[2] The petitioner has challenged an order dated 24.11.2020 passed by

the Additional Commissioner of State Tax, Government of Tripura by which the

petitioner's appeal against an order of assessment was dismissed on the ground

of delay. The record would show that the order of assessment was passed by the Page - 3 of 6

Superintendent of State Taxes on 03.06.2020. The petitioner had filed appeal on

03.11.2020 which was held to be beyond limitation.

[3] Section 107 of the Tripura State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017

(TSGST Act, 2017 for short) pertains to appeal to appellate authority. Sub

Section (1) of Section 107 permits an aggrieved person by an order passed under

the Act by the adjudicating authority to prefer appeal before the appellate

authority within three months from the date on which the said order is

communicated to him. Sub Section (4) of Section 107 provides that the appellate

authority if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause

from presenting the appeal within the said period, allow it to be presented within

a further period of one month. Thus in terms of Section 107 of the TSGST Act,

an appeal against order of assessment can be presented within three months

which can be extended by a maximum period of one month. Under the

circumstances, the appellate authority would have no power to condone the

delay beyond one month. However, the situation in the present case is

superseded by the unprecedented situation created by the spread of coronavirus

in the country. Not only in statutory schemes such as the present one, in large

number of other situations, the litigants would face extreme hardship where the

expiry of limitation would terminate the remedies forever. On the other hand, the

corona related restrictions and lock downs made it extremely difficult if not

impossible, for the aggrieved litigants to approach different courts and forums

for asserting their rights. Taking cognizance of such situation, the Supreme

Court in exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the

Constitution passed orders from time to time waving the limitation provisions Page - 4 of 6

and suspending the period from consideration for limitation during which the

corona restrictions were prevailing. First such order was passed on 23rd March,

2020, coinciding with extremely strict nationwide lockdown announced by the

Government of India. In this order, the Supreme Court provided that the period

of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed by

the general law or special law whether condonable or not shall stand extended

with effect from 15th March, 2020 till further orders to be passed by the Court. It

is not necessary to take note of further orders passed by the Supreme Court in

this regard. Sufficient to refer to an order dated 08.03.2021 in which the

Supreme Court has provided as under:

"2. We have considered the suggestions of the learned Attorney General for India regarding the future course of action. We deem it appropriate to issue the following directions: -

1. In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2020, if any, shall become available with effect from 15.03.2021.

2. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 15.03.2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 15.03.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.

3. The period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.

4. The Government of India shall amend the guidelines for containment zones, to state. "Regulated movement will be allowed for medical emergencies, provision of essential goods and services, and other necessary functions, such as, time bound applications, Page - 5 of 6

including for legal purposes, and educational and job- related requirements."

3. The Suo Motu Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly."

[4] As per this order thus in computing the period of limitation for any

suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till

14.03.2021 shall stand excluded and balance period of limitation remaining as

on 15.03.2020 shall become available with effect from 15.03.2021. In other

words, the effect of this order was that the entire time lapsed between

15.03.2020 to 15.03.2021 in pursuing any legal proceeding, would be ignored

for the purpose of limitation.

[5] In the present case, as noted, the Assessing Officer had passed the

order of assessment on 03.06.2020 against which the petitioner preferred appeal

on 03.11.2020. Both these events namely, the order of assessment which the

petitioner had challenged and the presentation of appeal against such order fell

within the immunity period provided by the Supreme Court in the said order i.e.

the period between 15.03.2020 to 15.03.2021. There was thus no delay at the

hands of the petitioner in preferring the appeal. As noted, facts in other cases are

similar. The crucial dates of order of assessment and petitioner preferring appeal

are identical and fall within the immunity period provided by the Supreme

Court.

[6] Under the circumstances, the petitions are disposed of by quashing

the respective orders passed by the appellate Commissioner rejecting the

petitioner's appeals on the ground of delay. Resultantly, all the appeals shall be

examined on merits and disposed of in accordance with law.

Page - 6 of 6

[7] Petitions disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any,

also stands disposed of.

(S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY),J. (AKIL KURESHI),CJ.

Dipankar