Tripura High Court
M/S R.A. Mazumder vs Union Of India on 14 August, 2024
Author: Arindam Lodh
Bench: Arindam Lodh
Page 1
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Review Pet. 19 of 2024
M/s R.A. Mazumder, A Proprietorship Firm having its office at Panchgram,
Hailakandi, Assam, represented by the Proprietor, Sri Rafique Ahmed
Mazumder.
.....Petitioner
-VERSUS-
1. Union of India, represented by its Secretary, to the Government of
India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi-
110001.
2. The Commissioner, Central GST, Central GST Bhawan, Netaji
Chowmuhani, Mantri Bari Road, West Tripura, 799001.
3. The Additional Commissioner, Central GST, Central GST Bhawan,
Netaji Chowmuhani, Mantri Bari Road, West Tripura, 799001.
....Respondents
For Petitioner (s ) : Ms. Nitu Hawelia, Advocate
For Respondent (s) : Mr. P. Datta, Advocate
Mr. B. Majumder, Deputy SGI
Date of hearing & delivery : 14.08.2024
of judgment & order
Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Upon hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon
consideration of the explanation of 7 days delay in preferring the instant Review
Petition, delay being minor is condoned.
I.A. stands disposed of.
Review Pet. 19 of 2024
Heard Ms. N. Hawelia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also
heard Mr. P. Datta, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 and 3 and
Mr. B. Majumder, learned Deputy SGI for respondent no. 1.
2. The writ petition was dismissed following the ratio laid down in Assistant
Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & others vs. Glaxo Smithkline Consumer
Page 2
Health Care Limited, reported in (2020) 19 SCC 681, as in the opinion of the
court, the writ petition was filed after expiry of the period of limitation for
preferring an appeal under Section 107(1) read with Section 107(4) of the CGST
Act i.e. on 05.08.2023 whereas the Order in Original was dated 30.03.2023.
3. The primary ground for seeking of review raised by the petitioner is that
the provisions of CGST Act, 2017, would not be applicable to the case of the
petitioner since the proceedings under Finance Act, 1994 for realization of
Service Tax dues related to financial year 2016-17 which provides for a different
period of limitation. As such, on that ground review has been sought.
5. We have examined the contention of the petitioner. Though from the
Order in Original dated 30.03.2023, at para 2, in the cause title, it is apparent
that the period for preferring an appeal by a person aggrieved against the Order
in Original before the Commissioner appeals is 2 months from the date of
communication of the order, but learned counsel for the petitioner had insisted
that as per some subsequent amendment it is 3 months. That date would also
count from the date of communication of the order. Therefore, the writ petition
was filed after expiry of the period of limitation.
6. From perusal of para 11 of the writ petition, it is apparent that the
petitioner has himself stated that the Order in Original was passed on
30.03.2023, but the same was communicated to the petitioner on 10.04.2023.
Even counting 3 months period, as canvassed by learned counsel for the
petitioner, therefrom it would expire by 09.07.2023 whereas the writ petition
was filed on 05.08.2023. Learned counsel for the review petitioner then submits
that the delay as per Section 85 of the Finance Act is condonable for a further
period of 3 months.
Page 3
7. We are afraid that this condonable period would not come for the
purposes of counting the period of limitation which is the original period
prescribed under the Act i.e. 2 months as per Order in Original, but 3 months as
per learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, we are of the view that even
though the provisions of CGST Act may not be applicable but applying the
provisions of Finance Act, 1994 also the writ petition was filed after expiry of
the period of limitation.
8. Hence, we do not find any error in the impugned judgment to that
extent warranting interference. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.
9. At the end, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that liberty may
be granted to the petitioner to pursue his remedy before the appellate forum and
the appellant authority may be directed to consider the delay sympathetically as
the petitioner was pursuing his remedy on erroneous advice before this court.
10. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the appellate authority, if
permissible in law and take all grounds for condonation of delay, as aforesaid.
(ARINDAM LODH),J (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
SAIKAT KAR KAR
Date: 2024.08.17 11:19:29
+05'30'
