Atlantis Intelligence Ltd vs Union of India (Allahabad High Court)

(1) Under Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in the event the service is made by way of the registered email, the same would be a good service and limitation would start from that date itself. The assessee cannot be allowed to take a ground that the other modes of service that have been provided in clauses (a) to (f) of sub-section (1) to Section 169 of the Act have not been followed. If one were to read that for service to be complete more than one mode as has been prescribed under Section 169 of the Act is required to be followed, the entire purpose of the provision would become absurd. Such a reading is neither plausible nor can be countenanced by us.

(2) Accordingly, service of the order by registered email is a valid service and the date on which such service is made would count as the date for the purpose of limitation.

(3) The principles with regard to maintainability of the writ petitions after expiry of the time frame for filing appeal stipulated in the special statute are summarised below:

A. An order that the Court could make in order to do complete justice between the parties, must not only be consistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India, but also be consistent with the substantive provisions of the relevant statutory laws.

B. In exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in assessing the needs of ‘complete justice’ of a cause or 16 matter, the High Court should take note of the express prohibitions in any substantive statutory provision based on some fundamental principles of public policy and regulate the exercise of its power and discretion accordingly.

C. The prescription of limitation when the statute commands that delay may be condoned to a maximum of one month further would come within the ambit and sweep of the policy of legislation. In such cases, Section 29(2) read with Section 3 of the Limitation Act would apply, and accordingly, the Courts shall have no power to condone the delay of any further period even in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

D. The principle of Section 14 of the Limitation Act which is a principle based on advancing the cause of justice would certainly apply to exclude time taken in prosecuting proceedings which are bona fide and with due diligence pursued, which ultimately end without a decision on the merits of the case.

In the present case, the petitioner has come to this writ Court after the limitation has expired for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Act. In light of the same, we are of the view that entertaining this writ petition would amount to allowing the petitioner to circumvent the statutory appellate procedure. In our view, no proper explanation has been provided by the petitioner for non-filing of the appeal within time and/or non-filing of the writ petition within the limitation period.