M/S. Infosys Bpm LTD. vs. The Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax

Held

The Court directed the petitioner to make a formal manual application to the appellate authority for a copy of the order-in-appeal dated 30.04.2024 by the next day. Upon such application, the copy of the order-in-appeal was to be provided to the petitioner within one week. The petitioner was granted liberty to prefer an appeal before the GSTAT within three weeks from the date of the order, along with the statutory pre-deposit and a delay condonation application. The Court also noted that in case the appeal is filed within the stipulated period with the statutory pre-deposit, the impugned demand would be in abeyance, as per Section 112(8) of the CGST Act. The Court did not explicitly leave any issue undecided. The reasoning was based on the limited facts presented and the grievance of the petitioner regarding non-service of the appellate order, which prevented them from exercising their statutory right of appeal.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Infosys BPM Ltd., is challenging an order-in-original dated 29.05.2026 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Tax, which confirmed the recovery of a refund sanctioned amounting to Rs. 19,47,15,590/- for the period April 2021 to March 2022, along with applicable interest and penalty. The petitioner's grievance stems from the fact that an appeal against the refund sanction was decided ex-parte on 30.04.2024, without serving a copy of the appeal papers to the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner has not received the order-in-appeal and has been unable to prefer a further appeal to the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) within the prescribed time limit. The department has initiated recovery proceedings based on the order-in-original.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the supply of the order-in-appeal dated 30.04.2024, which has not been served upon it, to enable it to prefer a further appeal? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the CGST Act). 2. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to prefer an appeal before the GSTAT beyond the statutory period, with a direction for condonation of delay, considering the non-service of the order-in-appeal? (Question of law and procedure, concerning Section 112 of the CGST Act and the powers of the Court). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the order-in-appeal was neither served nor uploaded on the common portal, preventing them from filing an appeal within the prescribed time. They sought liberty to prefer an appeal within three weeks, with a direction for condonation of delay by the GSTAT, considering the pendency of the writ petition. They also requested a copy of the order-in-appeal. Revenue's arguments: The learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC acknowledged that it was a matter of verification whether the order-in-appeal was uploaded. They submitted that if the petitioner approached the concerned authority, the copy would be made available within a week, enabling the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act.