Principal Commissioner, GST, Delhi South vs. M/S. Indraprasth Gas Limited

Facts

The appellant, Principal Commissioner, GST, Delhi South, sought to appeal an order dated 14.11.2017 passed by the Customs Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The Tribunal had sustained an earlier order passed by the adjudicating authority, meaning the respondent, M/s. Indraprasth Gas Limited, had succeeded in two prior forums. The appeal was filed with a delay of 1310 days. The appellant attributed this delay to the transition to the GST regime on 01.07.2017, which led to the bifurcation of Commissionerates and alleged miscommunication or non-receipt of the CESTAT order. The appellant claimed to have become aware of the order only on 06.07.2021 when a letter was received from the Deputy Commissioner-Review, GST-Gurugram, inquiring about the status of the appeal.

Held

The Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay. The Court found the reasons provided by the appellant for the 1310-day delay to be untenable in law. It noted that the appellant made no attempts to ascertain the status of its appeal for over three and a half years after the CESTAT order was passed on 14.11.2017. The Court observed that the appellant's assertion of ignorance due to the GST regime transition and Commissionerate bifurcation was not a sufficient excuse, especially since it was incumbent upon the appellant to furnish correct service details. Furthermore, the Court took judicial notice that Tribunal orders have been uploaded on its website since January 2017, providing the appellant with means to acquire knowledge. The Court cited the Supreme Court's observations in State of M.P. v. Bherulal and Postmaster General v. Living Media (India) Ltd., emphasizing that government departments cannot rely on outdated excuses of bureaucratic delays and must demonstrate diligence and a bona fide effort to explain delays, which the appellant failed to do. Consequently, the appeal was deemed to have no further survival.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 1310 days in filing the appeal should be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the appellant, particularly in light of the transition to the GST regime and alleged miscommunication regarding the service of the CESTAT order dated 14.11.2017? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of principles for condonation of delay and the appellant's conduct). Petitioner's arguments: The appellant argued that the delay was caused by the administrative upheaval and confusion following the introduction of the GST regime, which resulted in the bifurcation of the Commissionerates. They claimed the order was not received in the proper office due to miscommunication and that they only became aware of it on 06.07.2021. They relied on the principle that some leeway should be given for government inefficiencies. Revenue's arguments: The respondent did not file any arguments on this issue as the matter was decided on the delay application. The Court, however, considered the appellant's submissions and relevant precedents.