The Uttarakhand High Court has clarified that the Supreme Court’s extraordinary order extending limitation periods during the Covid-19 pandemic applies uniformly to all quasi-judicial proceedings under special statutes, including appeals under the Central Excise Act. This ruling resolves a critical ambiguity in the application of the Supreme Court’s 2022 directive and restores access to remedy for litigants whose appeals were dismissed on technical grounds.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Sai Auto Industries, challenged an order passed by the Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax (Appeals), Dehradun, which dismissed its appeal against an order of the Additional Commissioner. The dismissal was based on the ground that the appeal was filed beyond the statutory limitation period under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Key Facts
- The impugned order dated 28.12.2022 was communicated to the appellant on 18.02.2022
- The statutory limitation period under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act is 60 days from the date of communication
- The appellant filed the appeal before CESTAT on 30.05.2022
- The limitation period, if calculated from 18.02.2022, would have expired on 19.04.2022
- The appellant did not file any application for condonation of delay
Procedural History
- 18.02.2022: Communication of the order dated 28.12.2022 received by the appellant
- 30.05.2022: Appeal filed before CESTAT (Excise Appeal No.50976 of 2025)
- 29.09.2025: CESTAT dismissed the appeal on grounds of limitation
- 01.01.2026: Appeal filed before the Uttarakhand High Court (Central Excise Appeal No.1 of 2026)
- 27.03.2026: Judgment delivered by the Division Bench
Relief Sought
The appellant sought setting aside of the CESTAT order dated 29.09.2025 and restoration of its appeal for adjudication on merits, relying on the Supreme Court’s order dated 10.01.2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Supreme Court’s directive under Article 142, extending limitation periods by 90 days from 01.03.2022, applies to all appeals under special statutes like the Central Excise Act, irrespective of whether the original limitation period expired during the excluded period (15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022).
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel argued that the Supreme Court’s order dated 10.01.2022, issued under Article 142 of the Constitution, was intended to provide uniform relief to all litigants affected by the pandemic. He relied on Paragraph 5(3) of the order, which states that "all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022" without any qualification based on whether the original limitation had expired during the excluded period. He contended that the CESTAT’s interpretation created an artificial distinction between two classes of litigants, contrary to the spirit of the Supreme Court’s directive.
For the Respondent
The revenue’s counsel contended that Paragraph 5(3) applied only to cases where the limitation period had expired between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022. He argued that since the appellant’s limitation period (60 days) expired on 19.04.2022 - after the excluded period - it was not covered by the 90-day extension. He further submitted that the statutory limitation under Section 35 could not be overridden unless the specific condition in Paragraph 5(3) was met.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a purposive interpretation of the Supreme Court’s order dated 10.01.2022, emphasizing its constitutional foundation under Article 142. The Bench observed that the Supreme Court’s intent was to eliminate procedural hardships caused by the pandemic, not to create a complex, case-specific regime for limitation.
"The direction given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said paragraph clearly states that the limitation would be 90 days from 01.03.2022. Although it speaks of the cases where limitation had expired between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022 but if the submission is accepted then in such cases irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the Statute the same would get extended for 90 days from 01.03.2022 whereas in other cases where limitation did not expire during the said period, the limitation would continue to be as prescribed in the Statute and thus an artificial distinction would come into existence between two category of cases which was never intended by the Hon’ble Supreme Court."
The Court rejected the revenue’s argument that the 90-day extension was conditional on the original limitation expiring during the excluded period. It held that such an interpretation would defeat the objective of uniformity and fairness. The Bench further noted that 28.05.2022 was a Saturday and 29.05.2022 was a Sunday, making 30.05.2022 the first working day after the extended deadline.
The Court concluded that the Supreme Court’s order was a blanket directive applicable to all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings under any law, and that CESTAT erred in limiting its scope.
The Verdict
The appellant succeeded. The Uttarakhand High Court set aside the CESTAT order dated 29.09.2025, restored the appeal to its original number, and directed that the appeal be decided on its merits. The Court also disposed of all pending applications.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Limitation Extensions Under Article 142 Are Universal
- Practitioners must now treat the Supreme Court’s 90-day extension from 01.03.2022 as applicable to all statutory limitation periods, whether under the Central Excise Act, Income Tax Act, GST law, or other quasi-judicial forums
- The condition that the original limitation must have expired between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022 is not a prerequisite for invoking the 90-day extension
- This applies even if the limitation period was still running on 01.03.2022
Procedural Compliance Must Be Interpreted Liberally
- Courts and tribunals must prioritize substantive justice over technicalities when applying pandemic-era orders
- Failure to file a condonation application is not fatal if the appeal falls within the extended period under Article 142
- The date of filing must be calculated with due regard to holidays under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and other relevant rules
Quasi-Judicial Forums Are Bound by Constitutional Directives
- Tribunals like CESTAT cannot narrow the scope of Supreme Court orders issued under Article 142
- The doctrine of stare decisis requires lower forums to follow the spirit and letter of such orders without imposing additional conditions
- This precedent reinforces the supremacy of constitutional remedies over statutory limitations in extraordinary circumstances
