M.Rajasekar vs. The Assistant Commissioner (Appeals)

Facts

These two writ petitions were filed by M. Rajasekar and L. Christu Dhass. The petitioners challenged orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals) respectively. The core issue appears to be the delay in filing appeals before the appellate authorities. The petitioners sought to quash the impugned orders, alleging violations of natural justice, judicial discipline, and constitutional provisions. They prayed for a direction to the first respondent (Appellate Authority) to re-hear their appeals. The respondents are the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals) and the Assistant Commissioner, GST and Central Excise.

Held

The Court, considering the identical nature of the facts concerning the delay in filing appeals, disposed of the writ petitions by following a previous order passed in M. Thiagarajan Vs The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (Appeals) and others (W.P(MD)No.13231 of 2024). The Court directed the petitioners to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within thirty days of receiving a copy of the order. Any pre-deposit already made under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, as made applicable, would be adjusted. Upon successful deposit, the respondents were directed to consider and dispose of the appeals on merits and in accordance with law, in their turn. The Court allowed the writ petitions with these directions, with no costs. The issue of whether the original orders were arbitrary or violative of natural justice was implicitly addressed by remanding the matter for fresh consideration on merits, subject to the deposit condition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders passed by the appellate authorities, which appear to have been passed without considering the appeals on merits due to procedural issues (likely delay), are arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that the impugned orders were passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, judicial discipline, and were arbitrary and perverse. They argued that their constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) were violated. They sought a direction for their appeals to be re-heard. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the respondents. However, the respondents were represented by a Senior Standing Counsel, indicating their participation in the proceedings.