Hillman Hosiery Mills PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority on the sole ground of being time-barred. The petitioner argued that the delay was eighteen days and sought condonation based on Section 107(4) of the CGST Act and the Supreme Court's suo motu order in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation. The Court, considering the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, found it appropriate to set aside the appellate authority's order. The matter was remanded back to the appellate authority to hear and dispose of the appeal on its merits. The ratio decidendi is that procedural delays, especially those impacted by judicial pronouncements on limitation extension, should not preclude a substantive hearing on the merits of an appeal, provided certain conditions are met. The operative direction was to remand the matter for a fresh hearing on merits within eight weeks, subject to the petitioner paying a cost of Rs. 25,000/- to the Legal Aid Society, West Bengal, within seven days and filing proof of payment.

Facts

The petitioner, Hillman Hosiery Mills Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated February 6, 2023, passed by the appellate authority. This order dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an order-in-original dated January 5, 2021, solely on the grounds that the appeal was time-barred. The petitioner contended that the actual delay in filing the appeal was eighteen days. The petitioner relied on Section 107(4) of the CGST Act and a Supreme Court judgment concerning the extension of limitation due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority was time-barred, considering the provisions of Section 107(4) of the CGST Act and the Supreme Court's suo motu order in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, in re (2022) 134 Taxmann.com 307/441 ITR 722? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the actual delay in filing the appeal was eighteen days. They contended that this delay should be condoned in light of the Supreme Court's directive regarding the extension of limitation periods, which was applicable to the period in question. They relied on Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, which allows for condonation of delay beyond the prescribed period under certain circumstances. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or the CGST & CX authorities.