M/S A M S Enterprises vs. Joint Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Held

The Court held that the first respondent erred in rejecting the petitioner's appeal on the ground of limitation. The reasoning was that the appellate authority failed to consider the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which extended the period of limitation due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The appeal was filed on 10.12.2020, which fell within the extended period of limitation up to 02.10.2021. Therefore, the rejection on limitation was incorrect. The Court also acknowledged that the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)-6 would be the appropriate appellate authority based on territorial jurisdiction. The ratio decidendi is that statutory appeals rejected solely on limitation must be considered on merits if the limitation period was extended by Supreme Court orders due to unforeseen circumstances like the pandemic, and the appeal was filed within such extended period. The Court quashed the impugned order and directed the petitioner to appear before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)-6 on 04.01.2024 for consideration of the appeal on merits.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s A M S Enterprises, engaged in trading iron and steel components, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 19.08.2023 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)-3. This order rejected the petitioner's appeal against an order dated 10.02.2020 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer (Enforcement)-4. The rejection was solely on the ground of limitation. The petitioner was required to file its appeal by 09.07.2022, considering the extended period granted by the Supreme Court, but filed it on 10.12.2020. The petitioner also raised a secondary issue regarding the appellate authority, stating the appeal should have been before Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)-6.

Key Issues

1. Whether the first respondent erred in rejecting the petitioner's appeal on the ground of limitation, failing to consider the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court extending the period of limitation due to the COVID-19 pandemic? (Question of law) 2. Whether the appeal was listed before the correct appellate authority, or if it should have been considered by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)-6? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's Arguments: - The first respondent should have considered the Supreme Court's orders in Miscellaneous Application No.21/2022 & No.665/2021 in Suo Moto writ petition (C) No.3/2020, which extended the period of limitation from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021. The appeal filed on 10.12.2020 was within this extended period. - The petitioner would not insist on an order on the second ground if successful on the first, but requested that if the first ground succeeded, the Court should direct the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)-6 to consider the merits. Respondents' Arguments: - The respondents' counsel could not controvert that the limitation was examined without considering the Supreme Court's orders extending the period of limitation until 02.10.2021. - The respondents' counsel also could not controvert that the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)-6 would be the appropriate appellate authority based on territorial jurisdiction.