M/S.Susee Auto Sales And Services PVT LTD vs. Assistant Commissioner Of GST And Ce (Tech)

Held

The Court acknowledged that, in terms of the statutory limitation prescribed under Section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1984, the Appellate Authority indeed cannot condone a delay of 815 days. However, the Court took note of the peculiar circumstances of the case. It was established that the petitioner had paid the pre-requisite deposit of 7.5% of the demanded tax, indicating an intention to prefer an appeal. The Court accepted the petitioner's claim that the delay was due to an inadvertent mistake of filing the appeal before the wrong Forum. Exercising its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court found it appropriate to condone the delay for these peculiar reasons. Consequently, the Court directed the second respondent/Appellate Authority to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner against the Order-in-Original and decide it on its merits. The challenge to the Order-in-Original itself in the writ petition was rendered unnecessary by this direction. The Court clarified that the petitioner should present a copy of this order to the Appellate Authority to facilitate the entertainment and decision of the appeal.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Susee Auto Sales & Services Pvt Ltd., received an Order-in-Original (OO) dated August 30, 2018, from the Assistant Commissioner of GST & CE (Tech), Madurai, concerning alleged non-payment and short payment of service tax for various services and reversal of Cenvat credit, totaling Rs. 2,98,973/- and Rs. 4,36,649/- respectively, for the period 2012-2013 to 2016-2017. The petitioner claims to have received the OO on September 4, 2018, and paid the mandatory 7.5% pre-requisite deposit on September 20, 2018. Subsequently, the petitioner alleges that the appeal papers were mistakenly sent to the Original Authority instead of the Appellate Authority. After a considerable delay, the petitioner filed a fresh appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was rejected due to an 815-day delay, as the Appellate Authority lacked the power to condone such a delay beyond the statutory period under Section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1984.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority has the power to condone a delay of 815 days in filing an appeal, considering the limitations prescribed under Section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1984? 2. Whether the High Court, in its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can direct the Appellate Authority to entertain and decide an appeal filed with a significant delay, given the peculiar facts of the case? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the delay in filing the appeal was due to an inadvertent mistake by their inexperienced staff, who mistakenly sent the appeal papers to the Original Authority instead of the Appellate Authority. They argued that having paid the pre-requisite deposit, they intended to file an appeal. They sought a direction for the Appellate Authority to entertain the appeal and decide it on merits. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the petitioner was given multiple opportunities to reply to the show cause notice, which were not utilized. They stated that the Appellate Authority rightly rejected the appeal as it was filed beyond the statutory limitation period prescribed under Section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1984, and the Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to condone such a substantial delay.