M/S Balaji Shipping vs. Union Of INDIA

CW/9010/2024HC RajasthanGSTCNR RJHC02043816202411 July 2024Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Balaji Shipping, filed two writ petitions before the Rajasthan High Court. The petitions challenge an order dated 21.02.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, CGST and Customs. This order dismissed the petitioner's appeal as time-barred. The petitioner claims a demand was created against them via an order dated 24.08.2023. According to the petitioner, their appeal was preferred online on 22.11.2023. However, the Appellate Authority found the appeal was filed on 29.11.2023, deeming it beyond the prescribed limitation period.

Held

The Court set aside the impugned order dated 21.02.2024. The matter was remitted back to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law. The Appellate Authority was directed to specifically decide the issue concerning the date of filing of the appeal. Furthermore, if there was a delay of less than thirty days in filing the appeal, the Appellate Authority was instructed to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to seek condonation of such delay. The Court made no comments on the merits of the case. The specific provisions of the CGST Act and Rules concerning limitation and condonation of delay were implicitly considered.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner was within the prescribed limitation period, as per the relevant provisions of the CGST Act and Rules? 2. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the appeal without providing an opportunity to the petitioner to seek condonation of delay, if any, under its powers to condone delays up to thirty days? The petitioner argued that the appeal was filed within the limitation period. Alternatively, they contended that the Appellate Authority has the power to condone delays up to thirty days and that no opportunity was granted to seek such condonation. The respondent defended the impugned order, stating that as per the Appellate Authority's finding, the appeal was filed on 29.11.2023, which was beyond the limitation period.

Sections Cited

Not specified in the judgment

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[2024:RJ-JP:29000-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9071/2024 M/s Balaji Shipping, Flat No. C-20, Third Floor, Srs Building, Jaipur Ajmer By Pass Road, Madanganj, Kishangarh, Rajasthan- 305801 Through Its Proprietor Mr. Deepak Kumar Sharma, S/o Ramesh Chand Sharma, Aged About 31 Years, Prabhu Niwas Bhandari Mohalla Old City Kishangarh Ajmer Rajasthan -305802. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Superintendent, Cgst Range- Lii, Kishangarh, A-1, Laxminarayan Vihar Colony, Opposite, Central Bank Of India, Ajmer Road, Kishangarh. 2. The Additional Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Cgst And Customs, Ncrb, Statue Circle, Jaipur-302005. 3. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Commissioner, Commerical Tax Department, Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur-302004. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9010/2024 M/s Balaji Shipping, Flat No. C-20, Third Floor, Srs Building, Jaipur Ajmer By Pass Road, Madanganj, Kishangarh, Rajasthan-305801 Through Its Proprietor Mr. Deepak Kumar Sharma, S/o Ramesh Chand Sharma, Aged About 31 Years, Prabhu Niwas Bhandari Mohalla Old City Kishangarh Ajmer Rajasthan -305802. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Superintendent, Cgst Range-Lii, Kishangarh, Iind Floor Plot No. 6 And 20 Khoda Ganesh Colony, Opp. Agrsen Vihar, Ajmer Road Kishangarh. 2. The Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Cgst And Customs, Ncrb, Statue Circle, Jaipur-302005. 3. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Commissioner, Commerical Tax Department, Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur-302004. [2024:RJ-JP:29000-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-9071/2024] ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravi Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Taneja, AAG with Ms. Kinjal Surana, AGC Mr. Sandeep Pathak HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

Order 11/07/2024 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (ORAL):-

These two petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the facts and issues involved are similar. For convenience, the facts are being taken from D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9071/2024. 2. This petition is filed aggrieved of order dated 21.02.2024 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner as time barred.

The brief facts are that a demand against the petitioner was created vide order dated 24.08.2023. As per the petitioner, the appeal was preferred online on 22.11.2023. The Appellate Authority recorded a finding that the appeal was filed on 29.11.2023 and dismissed the appeal as time barred.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal was filed within limitation. Alternatively, the Appellate Authority had power to condone the delay up to thirty days. No opportunity was granted to the petitioner for seeking condonation of delay, if any.

[2024:RJ-JP:29000-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-9071/2024]

Learned counsel for the respondent defends the impugned order, submits that as per the Appellate Authority, the appeal was filed on 29.11.2023 and was beyond limitation.

Without commenting upon merits of the case, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law. The Appellate Authority shall decide the issue with regard to the date of filing of the appeal. If there is delay of less than thirty days, the Appellate Authority shall give an opportunity to petitioner for seeking condonation of delay.

The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Simple Kumawat /30 & 132

Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.