Rinku Das vs. Union Of INDIA And 3 Ors

WP(C)/4034/2023HC GauhatiGSTCNR GAHC01015306202305 January 2026Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, Rinku Das, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated December 29, 2022, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST Central Excise & Customs. The petitioner's sole contention was that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to grant the benefit of the Supreme Court's order dated January 10, 2022, in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3/2020. The petitioner argued that based on paragraph 5(III) of the Supreme Court's order, the appeal could have been filed by May 29, 2022. The petitioner filed their appeal on May 17, 2022, which was within the extended period. The Order-in-Original was passed on January 28, 2022. The revenue did not contest this aspect.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had time to file the appeal on or before May 29, 2022, as per the Supreme Court's order dated January 10, 2022, in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3/2020. Since the petitioner filed their appeal on May 17, 2022, it was within the period of limitation. The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have considered the appeal as filed within the limitation period. Consequently, the impugned order dated December 29, 2022, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside and quashed. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner (Appeals) was restored to the file of the said Authority. The Court directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal on merits against the Order-in-Original No. /ST/ADJ/ACD/2021-22 dated January 28, 2022. The ratio decidendi is that appeals filed within the extended period granted by the Supreme Court in its suo motu orders must be considered within limitation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner on May 17, 2022, was within the period of limitation as extended by the Supreme Court's order dated January 10, 2022, in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3/2020, specifically considering paragraph 5(III) of the said order? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court's order provided an extended period for filing appeals, and based on paragraph 5(III), the appeal could be filed on or before May 29, 2022. Since the petitioner filed their appeal on May 17, 2022, it was within the permissible time. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred by not considering this extension when passing the impugned order. Revenue's Argument: The learned Standing Counsel for the CGST stated that they would not contest the matter, taking into account the Supreme Court's order dated January 10, 2022.

Sections Cited

Not specified

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010153062023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4034/2023 RINKU DAS S/O SANATH DAS, R/O NEW COLONY NAHARKATIA, BIDYAMANDIR SCHOOL, P.O. AND P.S.-NAHARKATIA, DIST- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN- 786610 VERSUS 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 DIBRUGARH C.R. BUILDING DIBRUGARH-786001 4:THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CGST CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS 3RD FLOOR GST BHAWAN KEDAR ROAD MACHKHOWA GUWAHATI-78100 Page No.# 2/3 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K GUPTA, MS B SARMA,MR. R S MISHRA Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, GST BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

ORDER 06.01

.2026

Heard Mr. R.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Jain, learned Standing Counsel, GST.

The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 29.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST Central Excise & Customs in Order-in-Appeal No.29/DIB/CE(A)/GHY/2022. The sole ground on which the instant writ petition has been filed is that the petitioner was not granted the benefit of the order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3/2020. 3. Mr. R. S. Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Order-in-Original was passed on 28.01.2022. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that taking into account paragraph No.5(III) of the order dated 10.01.2022 passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3/2020, the petitioner could have filed the said appeal on or before 29.05.2022. He further submits that in the instant case, the petitioner had filed the appeal on 17.05.2022. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) in passing the impugned order dated 29.12.2022 had failed to take into consideration the above aspect of the matter and as such the impugned order is required to be interfered with.

Page No.# 3/3

Mr. K. Jain, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the CGST submits that he would not contest on this aspect of the matter taking into account the order dated 10.01.2022 passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C)

This Court having given anxious consideration to the above submissions is of the opinion that the petitioner had time to file the appeal on or before 29.05.2022. The appeal was filed on 17.05.2022. The said appeal ought to have been taken into consideration as an appeal filed within the period of limitation in view of the order dated 10.01.2022 passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C)

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST Central Excise & Customs in Order-in-Appeal No.29/DIB/CE(A)/GHY/2022 is set aside and quashed. The Appeal so filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner (Appeals) is restored to the file of the said Authority.

This Court therefore, directs the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST Central Excise and Customs to decide the appeal filed against the Order-in-Original No. /ST/ADJ/ACD/2021-22 dated 28.01.2022 on merits.

With above observations and directions, the instant petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant

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.