Madan Baidya vs. The Union Of INDIA And 3 Ors

WP(C)/267/2024HC GauhatiGSTCNR GAHC01000906202410 March 2026Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH6 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The petitioner, Madan Baidya, received an Order-in-Original dated 12.05.2021 from the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Jorhat, imposing service tax, penalty, and interest. The petitioner filed an appeal on 17.06.2022. The statutory period for filing the appeal under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994, was two months from the receipt of the order (22.05.2021), making the deadline 22.07.2021. The proviso allowed for condonation of delay up to one month further. The petitioner's appeal was filed approximately 11 months after the initial deadline. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the application for condonation of delay, citing a delay of 17 days in filing the appeal, which led to the present writ petition.

Held

The Court held that the Supreme Court's order dated 10.01.2022, in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020, significantly impacted the limitation period. The Court interpreted paragraph 5(III) of the Supreme Court's order to mean that for appeals where the limitation expired between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022, a period of 90 days from 01.03.2022 was available, or the remaining balance period if it was longer. Applying this to the facts, the Order-in-Original was received on 22.05.2021. The statutory appeal period ended on 22.07.2021. Considering the Supreme Court's order, the petitioner had time until 30.05.2022 to file the appeal. Furthermore, the one-month condonable period under the proviso to Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994, would be counted from 01.06.2022, extending the period for condonation up to 30.06.2022. The Court found that the Commissioner (Appeals) acted under the impression that they had no power to condone the delay, which constituted a failure to exercise jurisdiction. The Court considered the 17-day delay as sufficient cause and condoned it. The impugned order was set aside, and the Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to decide the appeal on merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the period of limitation for filing the appeal under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994, was extended due to the Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 concerning the COVID-19 pandemic? 2. Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them by law in rejecting the application for condonation of delay? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the Supreme Court's order dated 10.01.2022, in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020, extended the period of limitation. Specifically, paragraph 5(III) of the order provided for a 90-day limitation period from 01.03.2022, or the actual balance period if greater, for cases where limitation expired between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022. The petitioner argued that this extension, combined with the one-month condonable period under the proviso to Section 85(3A), meant the appeal was filed within the permissible time. The petitioner also argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) acted without applying their mind and failed to exercise the power to condone delay. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue.

Sections Cited

Section 85(3A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010009062024 2026:GAU-AS:3613 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/267/2024 MADAN BAIDYA SON OF LATE BARADA BAIDYA, RESIDENT OF RUPAHI ALI, NEAR UNITED BANK OF INDIA, JORHAT- 785001. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. 2:THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DIBRUGARH MILAN NAGAR LANE F P.O.- C.R. BUILDING DIBRUGARH- 786001. 3:THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX JORHAT. 4:THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CGST CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS 3RD FLOOR GST BHAWAN KEDAR ROAD Page No.# 2/6 MACHKHOWA GUWAHATI- 781001 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. S. Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. C. Keyal, SC, GST Date on which judgment is reserved : NA Date of pronouncement of judgment : 11.03.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment? : NA Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced? : Yes

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. R. S. Mishra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. S. C. Keyal, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 4. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the Order-in-Appeal No. 513/GHY(A)/COMMR/ST/DIB/2023 dated 14.09.2023, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned order’) whereby the application filed for condonation of delay was rejected on the ground that there was a delay of 17 days in filing the Appeal.

Page No.# 3/6

The brief facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition is that an Order-in-Original No.DIV/JOR/ST/01/21-22 dated 12.05.2021 was passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Jorhat whereby service tax as well as penalty and interest have been imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner thereupon filed an Appeal on 17.06.2022. In terms with Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994, the period for filing an Appeal is two months from the date of receipt of the decision or order of the adjudicating authority. It is also relevant to take note of that the proviso to Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 empowers the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) to condone the delay, if filed within a further period of one month.

The Order-in-Original was received by the petitioner on 22.05.2021. The Appeal ought to have been filed on or before 22.07.2021. However, the Appeal was filed on 17.06.2022. 5. At this stage, it is also pertinent to take note of that during that period, on account of the COVID pandemic, the Supreme Court had extended the period of limitation by passing an order on 10.01.2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020. Paragraph Nos.5(I), (II) and (III) of the order dated 10.01.2022 being relevant is reproduced herein under:-

Page No.# 4/6 “I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022. III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.”

From a perusal of the above quoted order and more particularly 5(III), it transpires that where the limitation would have expired during the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. It is also mentioned that in the event of the actual balance period of limitation remaining w.e.f. 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.

Page No.# 5/6

Taking into account the said directions, as the Order-in- Original was passed on 21.05.2021, i.e. during the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, the petitioner had time till 30.05.2022 to file the Appeal.

It is very pertinent to take note of at this stage that vide the order passed by the Supreme Court dated 10.01.2022, the period specified in Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 stood extended in the facts of the instant case, till 30.05.2022. The proviso to Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 empowered the Appellate Authority to condone the delay for a period of one month from the end of the period specified in Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 and therefore in the opinion of this Court, the one month permitted under the proviso to Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 would have to be counted w.e.f. 01.06.2022. In other words, the period upto 30.06.2022, the Appellate Authority could have condoned.

In the instant case, it is seen that the Commissioner (Appeals) was under the impression that the Commissioner (Appeals) had no power to condone the delay. It is the opinion of this Court that the order impugned therefore suffers from not only non-application of mind, but also failure to exercise the juri iction conferred upon the Commissioner (Appeals) under law.

Page No.# 6/6

10.

Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions:- (i) The impugned order dated 14.09.2023 is set aside and quashed. (ii) This Court has also perused the application filed for condoning the delay of 17 days and it is the opinion of this Court that the same constitutes a sufficient cause.

Accordingly this Court therefore condones the delay in filing

the Appeal on 17.06.2022. (iii) The Commissioner (Appeals), i.e. the respondent No.4 is directed to decide the Appeal on merits without insisting on the question of limitation.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant Pradip Kumar Kalita Kalita Date: 2026.03.17 12:41:49 +05'30'

Reproduced from the public record of the Gauhati High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.