Ataullah Construction Private Limited vs. Commissioner (Appeals) Central Goods And Service Tax

Held

The Court held that while the appeal filed by the Petitioner was indeed time-barred, in the specific facts and circumstances of the case, it ought to be decided on merits rather than being dismissed solely on the ground of delay. The Court found merit in the Petitioner's assertion that they had not received the order in original dated 27.08.2018. The Court noted that the Petitioner had filed an affidavit confirming non-receipt and only obtained the order when recovery proceedings were initiated. The Court acknowledged that despite the Respondent's assertion of postal delivery, the Petitioner's detailed representation dated 23.04.2019 clearly stated non-receipt. Therefore, the Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The matter was remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merits. The operative direction was to decide the appeal on merits.

Facts

Ataullah Construction Private Limited (Petitioner) challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Goods and Services Tax, Jaipur, dated 23.07.2019, which dismissed its appeal as time-barred. The Petitioner was issued an order in original dated 27.08.2018 by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, Ajmer (Respondent No. 2), demanding service tax of Rs. 22,55,293/-, interest, and penalty. The Petitioner claims it never received this order and only became aware of it when recovery proceedings were initiated. After requesting and receiving a certified copy of the order on 10.05.2019, the Petitioner filed an appeal on 07.06.2019. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal solely on the grounds of limitation without considering its merits. The Petitioner argued that the delay was due to non-receipt of the original order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Petitioner before the Commissioner (Appeals) was liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation, considering the Petitioner's assertion of non-receipt of the order in original dated 27.08.2018? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in tax law). Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have entertained the appeal on merits. It argued that the delay in filing the appeal was justified by the fact that the order in original was never received by the Petitioner, and they only obtained a copy after requesting it from the Assistant Commissioner. The Petitioner asserted that the Commissioner had mechanically rejected the appeal without considering these circumstances and the application for condonation of delay. Respondent's Arguments: The Respondent argued that a copy of the order was sent to the Petitioner by post, and the postal department reported delivery to the addressee. They referred to a letter dated 10.05.2019 sent by the Assistant Commissioner to the Petitioner.