Baba Iron Scrap Company vs. Assistant Commissioner, CGST And 2 Others
Held
The Court acknowledged the revenue's fair stand and sustained the preliminary objection regarding the writ petition's maintainability, disposing of the petition by allowing the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal. The Court directed that if the petitioner files an appeal within two weeks from the date of the order, it should be entertained without any objection as to limitation. Regarding pre-deposit, any amount already deposited against DRC-03 would be adjusted. The Court did not explicitly decide on the merits of the adjudication order itself, but rather facilitated the petitioner's access to the appellate forum.
Facts
The petitioner, Baba Iron Scrap Company, challenged an adjudication order dated October 31, 2025, passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, for the tax period June 2021 to March 2022. The revenue raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal. The petitioner contended that they lost the opportunity to file an appeal within the prescribed timeline due to unavoidable personal circumstances, specifically attending to her husband's serious medical ailments. This prevented her from filing the appeal within 120 days of the order's uploading or service.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an extension of time to file an appeal against the adjudication order dated October 31, 2025, beyond the statutory period, due to unavoidable personal circumstances? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, and principles of equity). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the strict timeline for filing an appeal, prescribed under the CGST Act, rendered them unable to file within the stipulated period due to her husband's critical medical condition, which was beyond her control. This prevented her from pursuing the statutory remedy. Revenue's contention: The revenue initially raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal. However, upon being apprised of the petitioner's circumstances, the revenue fairly stated that they would not object to the petitioner filing an appeal within a reasonable time as determined by the Court, solely in view of the unavoidable circumstances faced by the petitioner.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
available against the impugned order.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the remedy of appeal has been lost for reasons beyond control of the petitioner. She, a lady was attending to the serious ailments suffered by her husband who was practically in an intensive medical care. Such fact has been stated in paragraph 28 of the writ petition. Thus, it has been contended, in view of the harsh time line prescribed under the Act, petitioner has been disabled from filing appeal, after lapse of 120 days from the date of uploading of the impugned order a
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.