Tvl. Ajacks Support Service vs. The Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise

Held

The Court held that the petitioner ought to be granted an opportunity to file a statutory appeal. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's contention that the pandemic prevented them from availing the opportunities granted and from filing a statutory appeal within the time limit. The Court found it fit to direct the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the appellate authority. The ratio decidendi is that in exceptional circumstances, such as those caused by a pandemic, and where a party demonstrates a genuine inability to comply with procedural requirements, the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, can direct the appellate authority to consider an appeal filed beyond the limitation period. The operative direction was to permit the petitioner to file an appeal within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order, subject to paying 7.5% of the assessed amount. The appellate authority was directed to consider the appeal without insisting on the limitation period.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Ajacks Support Service, represented by its Proprietor D.Sebastin, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order in original dated 27.12.2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Kovilpatti Division. The petitioner had filed returns for the assessment year 2018-2019 declaring their turnover. A show cause notice was issued on 23.04.2021. The petitioner contended that due to the pandemic, they could not respond to the show cause notice or avail virtual hearing facilities. Despite opportunities, the petitioner failed to respond, leading to the impugned assessment order. The petitioner also did not prefer a statutory appeal within the prescribed time.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to file a statutory appeal, considering the circumstances arising from the pandemic and lack of virtual hearing facilities, despite the delay and failure to respond to the show cause notice and the impugned order. (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the pandemic significantly hampered their ability to respond to the show cause notice and participate in virtual hearings, which were not accessible to them. They also highlighted their inability to file a statutory appeal within the stipulated time due to these circumstances. Revenue's contention: The respondents (Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of CGST) noted that several opportunities were provided to the petitioner, which were not availed. They also pointed out that the petitioner failed to file a statutory appeal after the impugned order was passed.