Bengal Universal Consultants PVT. LTD. vs. The Superintendent, CGST, Range-Vi And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Bengal Universal Consultants Pvt. Ltd., challenged an order dated October 12, 2022, passed by the Appellate Authority under the CGST Act. The Appellate Authority dismissed the petitioner's appeal on the grounds of limitation, stating it was filed 23 months after the original order dated August 11, 2020. The petitioner contended that the appeal was actually filed on February 16, 2022, and that a significant portion of the delay was covered by the Supreme Court's orders providing relief during the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioner argued that the Appellate Authority failed to exclude the period from March 15, 2020, to February 28, 2022, as directed by the Supreme Court, for calculating the limitation period.

Held

The Court held that the Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal solely on the grounds of limitation without properly considering the Supreme Court's directions regarding the exclusion of the period from March 15, 2020, to February 28, 2022, for computing limitation periods. The Appellate Authority's order failed to grant the benefit of this exclusion to the petitioner, despite acknowledging the Supreme Court's judgment. Consequently, the impugned order of the Appellate Authority dated October 12, 2022, was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal on its merits after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The Appellate Authority was directed to pass a reasoned order within eight weeks from the communication of this order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal on the ground of limitation, failing to consider the benefit of the Supreme Court's order regarding the exclusion of the COVID-19 period for limitation purposes, as per Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the Appellate Authority wrongly dismissed the appeal without considering the Supreme Court's directive to exclude the period from March 15, 2020, to February 28, 2022, for limitation calculations. They contended that if this period were excluded, the appeal would be within the prescribed time limit, with only a minor delay concerning the certified copy of the original order. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the CGST Authority.