T Rajendran vs. The Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise (Appeals)

Facts

The petitioner, T. Rajendran, filed a writ petition challenging an order of assessment dated 30.03.2022 and a corrigendum dated 19.05.2022, both passed by the Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Thanjavur Division (2nd respondent). The petitioner also challenged the consequential order dated 24.02.2026 passed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise (Appeals) (1st respondent), which rejected the petitioner's appeal as time-barred. The petitioner contended that due to personal circumstances, they could not effectively respond to the show cause notice. After the original order, the petitioner pointed out errors, leading to a corrigendum. The appeal was filed against the corrigendum, but the appellate authority rejected it, stating the appeal should have been filed against the original order and was thus time-barred. The petitioner had deposited 7.5% of the disputed tax amount at the time of filing the appeal.

Held

The Court, while acknowledging the rival submissions and perusing the records, decided to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to canvas their case before the original authority, irrespective of the correctness of the rejection of the appeal. The Court took into account the petitioner's pleaded circumstances and the claim that many services are exempt from tax. The fact that the petitioner had already deposited 7.5% of the disputed tax amount was noted. On equitable consideration, the Court imposed a further condition for the petitioner to deposit an additional 10% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks. Upon this deposit, the impugned orders dated 30.03.2022, 19.05.2022, and 24.02.2026 would stand set aside, and the matter would be remanded to the second respondent (Assistant Commissioner) for a fresh adjudication. The petitioner would be permitted to file a reply and documents, and the second respondent would redo the exercise from the stage of personal hearing, passing orders on merits. The Court expressly left undecided the correctness of the rejection of the appeal as time-barred.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed against the corrigendum order, rather than the original order, was correctly rejected as time-barred by the appellate authority, considering the petitioner's plea of personal circumstances and the subsequent issuance of a corrigendum. This issue turns on the interpretation of the relevant rules concerning the limitation period for filing appeals and whether a corrigendum extends or resets this period. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that due to personal oversight and circumstances, they missed the opportunity to respond to the show cause notice. They believed the authority was reconsidering the issue after pointing out errors, leading to the corrigendum. They were hopeful for a complete correction and filed the appeal after the corrigendum, which was erroneously rejected as time-barred. Revenue's arguments: The revenue contended that a correct reading of the relevant rules and proviso clearly indicates that the limitation period for appeal starts from the date of the original order, not from the date of the corrigendum. Therefore, the appellate authority rightly rejected the appeal.