M/S Harikrishna Kundavarapu vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the finding in the impugned order, stating the petitioner had not mentioned the delay in filing the appeal, was factually incorrect. The Court noted that the petitioner had indeed informed about a one-month delay and intended to provide reasons. The Court reasoned that allowing this "innocuous prayer" would cause no prejudice to the revenue. Therefore, the Court inclined to allow the prayer, setting aside the order dated July 19, 2024. The petitioner was directed to file an appropriate application for condonation of delay within fifteen days from the date of the order. If filed within this period, the appellate authority was directed to rehear the petitioner on the application and pass orders in accordance with law. The Court explicitly stated it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, Life Tree Transport, represented by its proprietor Harikrishna Kundavarapu, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated July 19, 2024, passed by the Joint Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-II). This order dismissed the petitioner's appeal on the grounds of delay. The petitioner contended that while filing the appeal, they indicated a delay of one month but did not provide detailed reasons. The petitioner sought permission to file an appropriate application for condonation of delay before the appellate authority, requesting it to be decided afresh. The revenue, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, supported the impugned order, asserting no flaw in it.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated July 19, 2024, dismissing the petitioner's appeal on the ground of delay, is illegal and violative of the petitioner's rights, particularly in light of the petitioner's submission regarding a one-month delay. Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that they had mentioned a delay of one month in their appeal filing but did not elaborate on the reasons. They requested permission to file a detailed application for condonation of delay and for the appellate authority to decide it afresh in the interest of justice. The petitioner also claimed the order was illegal and violated Article 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution. Respondents (Revenue): Supported the impugned order dated July 19, 2024, and contended that there was no flaw in it.