M/S Aashirwad Industries vs. Additional Commissioner, Grade 2 Appeal-1 And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Aashirwad Industries, filed writ petitions challenging an order dated 03.06.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeals), Ghaziabad. The appeal was rejected by the appellate authority on the grounds of laches. The petitioner contended that the appeal was initially filed online on the GST portal on 21.04.2020. Subsequently, the physical appeal was filed on 02.07.2022, after obtaining a certified copy of the order. The petitioner argued that filing the certified copy of the order was not mandatory once the appeal was preferred with all records, and it should have been considered on merits rather than being dismissed for delay. The petitioner relied on judgments from the Allahabad High Court in Enkay Polymers Vs. State of U.P. and the Madras High Court in Kasturi & Sons Private Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner of GST & Others.
Held
The Court held that the impugned orders, which rejected the petitioner's appeal on the ground of laches, could not be sustained in the eyes of law. The Court found that the petitioner had filed the appeal online within the stipulated time and subsequently filed the physical appeal with all records. The Court agreed with the petitioner's submission that the filing of the certified copy of the order was not a mandatory requirement for the appeal to be considered on its merits, especially when the appeal was otherwise filed with all necessary documents. Relying on its own judgment in Enkay Polymers (supra) and the Madras High Court's decision in Kasturi & Sons Private Limited (supra), the Court concluded that the rejection of the appeal solely on the ground of laches was erroneous. The Court quashed the impugned orders. The matters were remanded to the first appellate authority for a de novo hearing on merits and to pass a reasoned order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the rejection of an appeal on the ground of laches, despite the appeal being filed online within time and subsequently physically with all records, is legally sustainable, particularly when the filing of a certified copy of the order is contended to be not mandatory? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on principles of procedural fairness and the interpretation of filing requirements under GST law). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the appeal was filed online on 21.04.2020 and physically on 02.07.2022. They contended that once the appeal was preferred with all necessary records, the subsequent filing of the certified copy of the order was not a mandatory requirement for the appeal to be considered on merits. The petitioner relied on the judgments in Enkay Polymers Vs. State of U.P. and Kasturi & Sons Private Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner of GST & Others to support their submission that the appeal should not have been rejected on the ground of laches. Revenue's Arguments: The learned ACSC did not dispute the legal propositions laid down by the High Court in the cited cases.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 1610 of 2024 WITH
WRIT TAX No. - 1619 of 2024 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. Heard Shri Suyash Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ACSC for the State - respondents. Since learned counsel for the parties submit that the issues involved in these writ petitions are similar, therefore, the same are being decided by the common order with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Writ Tax No. 1610 of 2024 is taken as a leading case for deciding the controversy involved in these writ petitions. Writ Tax No. 1610 of 2024: The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Suyash Agarwal Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Suyash Agarwal Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Aashirwad Industries .....Petitioner(s) Additional Commissioner, Grade 2 Appeal-1 And Another .....Respondent(s) M/S Aashirwad Industries .....Petitioner(s) Additional Commissioner Grade-2 Appeal-1 State Tax And Another .....Respondent(s)
2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade - 2 (Appeals), Ghaziabad rejecting the appeal of the petitioner on the ground of laches. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal was preferred within time on-line on GST portal on 21.04.2020 and thereafter, the appeal was physically filed after obtaining the certified copy of the order on 02.07.2022. He further submits that on the said premise, the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed by the impugned order. He further submits that once the appeal has been preferred, along with all records, filing of the certified copy of the order is not mandatory and the appeal ought to have been considered on merits, instead of rejecting the same on the ground of laches. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgement of this Court in Enkay Polymers Vs. State of U.P. [(2024) 19 Centax 39 (All.)] as well as the judgement of the High Court of Madras in Kasturi & Sons Private Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner of GST & Others [(2024) 22 Centax 101 (Mad.)]. Learned ACSC does not dispute the legal proposition laid down by this Court in the above-noted cases. In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case as well as the law laid down by this Court in Enkay Polymers (supra), the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The same are hereby quashed. The writ petition succeed and are allowed. The matters are remanded to the first appellate authority to hear the appeals de novo on its own merit and pass a reasoned order. September 9, 2025 Amit Mishra WTAX No. 1610 of 2024 2 (Piyush Agrawal,J.) AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.