M/S. Andhra Road Carrier vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the order dated March 15, 2023, passed by Respondent No. 3. The Court held that the Appellate Authority's action of returning the appeals at the admission stage without passing a reasoned order was not permissible under the statute or rules. The Court noted that the Order-In-Original was passed on July 20, 2021, and there was no material on record regarding its service on the petitioner immediately thereafter. The Court emphasized that an Appellate Authority is expected to pass an order deciding the appeal, even if it were to be decided on the question of limitation. The Court found no procedure where an appeal could be returned to the appellant. The Court directed Respondent No. 3 to consider the appeals and decide them by a reasoned order, explicitly stating that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the case. The Appellate Authority was also free to enter into the question of limitation and decide it after due verification of records. The ratio decidendi is that appellate authorities must pass reasoned orders deciding appeals, even on grounds of limitation, and cannot simply return appeals without adjudication.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s. Andhra Road Carrier and M/s. Att/Transport, filed four writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax and the Commissioner of GST and Central Tax, Appeals-II. The primary challenge was to an order dated March 15, 2023, passed by the Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 3), which returned the appeals filed by the petitioners at the admission stage. The petitioners contended that the Order-In-Original was passed on July 20, 2021, and they received a copy in December 2021, filing the appeal within three days thereafter. They argued that the appeal was filed within the extendable period allowed under Section 95 of the Finance Act, 1994, and the Appellate Authority's action of returning the appeals without considering the merits or limitation was illegal and arbitrary.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated March 15, 2023, passed by the Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 3) returning the appeals at the admission stage is a valid and reasoned order under the relevant provisions of law? 2. Whether the Appellate Authority was justified in returning the appeals without considering the merits or the grounds for condonation of delay, particularly when the appeals were filed within the extendable period provided under Section 95 of the Finance Act, 1994? Petitioner's Arguments: - The order dated March 15, 2023, is not a final order but merely a correspondence returning the appeals, which is impermissible under the rules. - The Order-In-Original was dated July 20, 2021, and received in December 2021, with the appeal filed within three days thereafter. - Section 95 of the Finance Act, 1994, allows for entertaining appeals beyond three months with a plausible explanation for the delay. - Returning the appeal is not a procedure contemplated by the statute or rules, and the impugned order lacks reasons. Revenue's Arguments: - The judgment records no specific arguments made by the respondents regarding the validity of returning the appeals or the interpretation of Section 95 of the Finance Act, 1994. The counsel for the department was unable to provide a cogent justification for the impugned order.