Commissioner,Central Excise,Service Tax And Customs vs. M/S.Western Bitumen Industries PVT.LTD.

Held

The Court held that no further indulgence could be shown to the Appellant due to its persistent failure to comply with essential procedural requirements for almost three years. These failures included not paying the deficit court fee of Rs. 194/-, not taking necessary limitation steps, and not filing a neat copy of the approximately 100-page paper book. The Court found these omissions to be significant and indicative of a lack of diligence on the part of the Appellant. Consequently, the Court decided to dismiss the Original Tax Appeal (OTAPL) No. 2 of 2019. The ratio decidendi is that procedural compliance is a prerequisite for the High Court to entertain an appeal, and persistent non-compliance, despite ample opportunity, warrants dismissal. No specific section of the GST Act or Rules was discussed in relation to the dismissal.

Facts

The appeal, an Original Tax Appeal (OTAPL) No. 2 of 2019, was filed before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack by the Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Bhubaneswar-I Commissionerate (the Appellant). The Respondent is M/s. Western Bitumen Industries Pvt. Ltd. The appeal has been pending for approximately three years. During this period, the Appellant has failed to pay a deficit court fee of Rs. 194/-, has not taken limitation steps, and has not filed a neat copy of the nearly 100 pages of the appeal. The Court noted these persistent deficiencies in the Appellant's conduct.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the Appellant's failure to comply with procedural requirements, specifically the payment of deficit court fee, taking limitation steps, and filing a neat copy of the paper book, as mandated by the High Court Rules and established practice? The Appellant, represented by Mr. Ch. Satyajit Mishra, Sr. Standing Counsel for GST, Central Excise & Customs Department, did not present any arguments regarding the merits of the case or contest the dismissal. The Court's decision was based solely on the Appellant's non-compliance with procedural formalities. The Revenue's contentions, if any, regarding the maintainability of the appeal on merits or against dismissal are not recorded in the judgment.