Deepak Kumar Jalan vs. Asst. Commissioner, Central Goods And Service Tax And Central Excise And Ors

Held

The High Court set aside the impugned order of the appellate authority. The Court found merit in considering the petitioner's claim of electronic filing and the challenges faced with manual filing. While acknowledging the delay in approaching the High Court, the Court, in the interest of justice, directed the appellate authority to hear the appeal on its merits. This decision was conditioned upon the petitioner paying a cost of Rs. 25,000/- to the authority within two weeks. Upon proof of payment, the appellate authority is to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after providing a hearing opportunity to the petitioner. The mode of payment is to be communicated to the petitioner within three days.

Facts

The petitioner, Deepak Kumar Jalan, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated February 8, 2023, passed by the appellate authority under the CGST Act. The petitioner filed the writ petition on September 1, 2023, approximately seven months after the appellate order. The appellate authority had dismissed the petitioner's statutory appeal on the grounds of delay, stating it was filed four months after receiving the adjudication order manually, and 54 days beyond the statutory period after excluding the allowed time. The petitioner contended that they filed the appeal electronically within the stipulated time after receiving the adjudication order electronically, and manual attempts to file were unsuccessful.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority was justified in dismissing the petitioner's statutory appeal on the ground of delay, considering the petitioner's submission of filing the appeal electronically within time and facing issues with manual filing. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the appeal was filed electronically within the prescribed time after receiving the adjudication order electronically. They also contended that manual attempts to file the appeal were not accepted by the system, implying a procedural impediment rather than a deliberate delay. Revenue's Argument: The revenue authority argued that the appeal was filed significantly beyond the statutory period, and the delay was not adequately explained, leading to its dismissal by the appellate authority.