Ms Elanco INDIA PVT LTD vs. The Excise And Taxation Officer Cum Proper Officer GST Ward 1 Ambala And Another

Original PDF →

CWP/19286/2024HC Punjab and HaryanaGSTCNR PHHC01097976202409 August 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Elanco India Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 30.12.2023 passed by the Excise and Taxation Officer, Ward-1, Ambala. The petitioner, engaged in animal health products, discovered the impugned order during 2019-20 scrutiny proceedings. They contend that the order was not delivered through any means specified in Section 169 of the CGST Act and was placed on the portal without communication. The petitioner had requested cancellation of their registration in 2020. The order, passed in December 2023, came to their notice only in April 2024, by which time the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, calculated from the order's passing date, had expired.

Held

The Court accepted the petitioner's contention that they were prevented from filing an appeal within the time limit. While acknowledging that the limitation period for appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act typically counts from the date of the order's passing, the Court noted that the petitioner only came to know of the order in April 2024. The Court found that there is a provision for appeal, and the factual aspects should be examined by the Appellate Authority. Therefore, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition directly but directed the Appellate Authority to examine the merits of the appeal if preferred within 15 days from the date of the order. The appeal is to be decided on merits, sans limitation, preferably within three months.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner was prevented from filing an appeal within the stipulated time under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, due to non-delivery of the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 as per Section 169 of the CGST Act. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was not served in accordance with Section 169 of the CGST Act and was placed on the portal without communication. Consequently, they only became aware of the order in April 2024, after the limitation period for filing an appeal, calculated from the date of the order's passing (30.12.2023), had expired. This effectively denied them their right to appeal. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or the respondents.

Sections Cited

Section 169, Section 107

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

CWP-19286-2024 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 106 CWP-19286-2024 Decided on : 09.08.2024 M/s Elanco India Pvt. Ltd. . . . Petitioner(s) Versus The Excise and Taxation Officer, Ward-1, Ambala and another . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Ms. Priyanka Rathi, Advocate and Mr. Ashwini Chandrasekaran, Advocate for the petitioner(s). **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA , J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition to quash impugned order dated 30.12.2023 passed by the Taxation and Excise officer. 2. The Petitioner is a company engaged in the business of animal health products and medicaments, whereby the petitioner is a subsidiary of Elanco Netherlands holding B.V., which is a global leader in animal health dedicated to innovating and delivering products and services to prevent and treat disease in farm animals and pets. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Impugned Order dated 30.12.2023 was discovered by the Appellant during the 2019-20 scrutiny proceedings. Respondent No. 1 failed to deliver the order through any means specified in Section 169 of the CGST Act. Consequently, the time limit to appeal under Section 107, expired on 30.03.2024, effectively denying the Petitioner the right to appeal and leaving them without any JAWALA RAM 2024.08.14 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-19286-2024 - 2 - remedy. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 30.12.2023, was placed on the portal without any communication to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had already requested for cancellation of its registration way-back in the year 2020, and the impugned order was passed in December, 2023, thus, same was not in their knowledge. It came to their notice only in April, 2024. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred present writ petition on the ground that the limitation period in terms of Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, of filing an appeal has expired, keeping in view period calculated from the date of passing of

the impugned order.

We have considered the submissions, and noticed that the petitioner had been conveyed the order only in April 2024, and therefore, the appeal could have been filed only after April 2024, within the stipulated period of 60 days i.e. the date when the order was communicated to the petitioner. However, the provision only states that the limitation would count from the date of passing of the order.

In view of above, we are inclined to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was prevented from filing appeal within time.

Be that as it may, since there is a provision for filing of appeal, and the said provision necessary implies that the factual aspects shall be examined by the Appellate Authority. JAWALA RAM 2024.08.14 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP-19286-2024 We do not propose to entertain this writ petition and direct the Appellate Authority to examine the merits of the appeal, if the same is preferred within a period of 15 days henceforth, the same may be decided on merits sans limitation, preferably, within a period of three months. Disposed of. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE August 09, 2024 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2024.08.14 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

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