Assistant Commissioner vs Ms. Meera Prasad Interim Resolution ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1850 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Limitation for an appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code runs from the date the impugned order is passed, not from the date the appellant receives a copy of it, and the receipt of the copy does not suspend or arrest the running of limitation. Time spent by an appellant in obtaining internal approvals and instructions for preparing the appeal is not a sufficient ground for condoning delay. Where the appellant has not shown that it applied for a certified copy so as to claim exclusion of the period during which the copy remained under preparation, no such exclusion is available. The Appellate Tribunal's power to condone delay in filing an appeal under Section 61(2) of the Code is limited to a condonable period of 15 days, and delay beyond that period cannot be condoned.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax & Central Excise, Division - V, Jamshedpur ...Appellant Versus Meera Prasad, IRP of Harihar International Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Aditya Singla and Mr. Ritwik Saha, Advocates.
For Respondents : Ms. Swastika Kumari and Mr. Navlendu Kumar, Advocates for R-2.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
19.02.2025 : I.A. No. 6777/2024
1. This is an Application praying for condonation of 23 days delay in filing
of the Appeal.
2. The Order impugned was passed on 22.03.2024 and this Appeal has
been e-filed on 14.05.2024.
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Order was
communicated to the Appellant only on 01.04.2024 and thereafter time was
taken in seeking approval from appropriate channels and obtaining
instructions for preparing the Appeal. It is submitted that limitation should
be counted from the date when Appellant received the Order i.e., 01.04.2024.
4. We have considered the submissions of Counsel for the Appellant and
perused the record.
5. The law is well settled that limitation for filing the Appeal shall
commence on the date when the Order is passed and commencement of
limitation shall not be suspended till the Appellant receives the copy of the
Order. The receipt of the copy of the Order by the Appellant cannot arrest the
running of the limitation.
6. Present is not a case that it is shown that Appellant applied for the
Certified Copy so that may be entitled for exclusion of the period during which
Certified Copy remained under preparation. Insofar as the ground taken in
the Affidavit that time was taken in obtaining necessary instructions from
appropriate channel, the said cannot be a ground for condoning the delay
which is beyond condonable period.
7. Appeal having been filed with delay of 23 days which is beyond
condonable period, since our jurisdiction to condone the delay is only limited
to 15 days as per Section 61(2) proviso, we are unable to condone the delay.
I.A. No. 6667/2024 is dismissed. Memo of Appeal is also dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1850 of 2024 & I.A. No. 6671 & 6777 of 2024 2 of 2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free