Mohammad Waisdullah @ Md. Waisdullah vs. Union Of INDIA And 3 Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Mohammad Waisdullah, is engaged in construction, repairs, and maintenance of public roads, activities he claims are exempted from service tax under notification no. 25/2012. He received a show cause notice on 29.09.2020, leading to a confirmed demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 1,17,06,467/- via an order-in-original dated 04.02.2022. The petitioner filed an appeal on 20.05.2022, evidenced by a stamped endorsement from the CGST Dibrugarh office. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected this appeal on 24.05.2023, citing non-compliance with the stipulated appeal period under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Held

The Court held that the order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the Supreme Court of India in M.A. No.21/2022 had the effect of extending the period of limitation. Consequently, despite the limitations prescribed under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, the delay in the petitioner approaching the Appellate Authority was condonable. The Court found that the appeal ought not to have been dismissed on the grounds of limitation. The Court also addressed the revenue's objection regarding the availability of an alternative remedy before the Appellate Tribunal, stating that given the Supreme Court's order on limitation, it would not relegate the petitioner to another round of litigation. The impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was vitiated by the non-consideration of the Supreme Court's order. The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the appeal back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration on merits, with the Appellate Authority to be guided by the Supreme Court's order on the issue of limitation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner (Appeals) was within the prescribed limitation period, considering the Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.3/2020 extending limitation periods. (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court's order dated 10.01.2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.21/2022, which excluded the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for limitation purposes and granted 90 days from 01.03.2022 (or the remaining balance period if longer), should apply. Therefore, his appeal filed on 20.05.2022 was within the extended limitation period. Revenue's contention: The revenue contended that under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, the condonable delay is limited to 60 days beyond the initial 90-day appeal period, and thereafter, an additional 30 days. The Appellate Authority lacked the power to extend the limitation beyond what is prescribed in Section 85.