Dec Agrotech PVT LTD vs. Superintendent CGST And Cx Circle Ii

Facts

The petitioner, DEC Agrotech Pvt. Ltd., challenged an order dated December 1, 2022, passed by the appellate authority. This order dismissed the petitioner's appeal, which was filed on February 17, 2022. The original appeal was against an order dated February 9, 2021. The dismissal was on the technical ground that the certified copy of the adjudication order was filed beyond the statutory period. The petitioner contended that their appeal was filed within the period of limitation, considering the Supreme Court's directions regarding the Covid-19 period. The revenue authority conceded that respondent no. 5 was not a relevant party, and its name was deleted.

Held

The Court held that the appeal in question was filed within the time by taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relating to the period of limitation falling within the Covid-19 pandemic. The Court found that the appeal was a case of filing the certified copy beyond the period of limitation. However, the Court was of the view that on that ground alone, the appeal of the petitioner could not be thrown out and it deserved a hearing on merit in the interest of natural justice. The ratio decidendi is that technicalities should not defeat substantive justice, especially when the delay in filing a document is attributable to circumstances covered by judicial pronouncements extending limitation periods. The impugned order of the appellate authority dated December 1, 2022, was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the appeal on merit and in accordance with law within eight weeks from the date of communication of the order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority was within the period of limitation, considering the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court concerning the Covid-19 period, as per the petitioner's contention. 2. Whether the appellate authority was justified in dismissing the petitioner's appeal solely on the technical ground of filing the certified copy of the adjudication order beyond the statutory period, thereby precluding a hearing on merits, as argued by the petitioner. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that their appeal was filed within the prescribed limitation period by taking into account the Supreme Court's judgment that extended the period of limitation for filings during the Covid-19 pandemic. They contended that the appeal should not have been dismissed on a technicality and deserved a hearing on its merits in the interest of natural justice. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records that the revenue authority conceded that respondent no. 5 was not a relevant party. No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue regarding the limitation period or the merits of the appeal.