Harish Rajput vs. The Chief Commissioner Central Goods Service Tax And Central Excise Lko And 3 Others

Held

The Court held that the impugned appellate order dated May 17, 2023, was liable to be set aside. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that the initial order under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, was passed ex-parte without providing an opportunity of hearing, which is a statutory requirement. Additionally, the appellate authority rejected the appeal on the ground of delay without properly considering the petitioner's reasons for the delay, which included the closure of their hotel address during the Covid-19 pandemic and their serious illness, supported by medical documents. The Court noted that the appellate authority neither considered nor disbelieved these reasons. Citing the principle from the relied-upon judgment in Writ Tax No. 151 of 2025, the Court found the delay to be prima facie bona fide. Consequently, the Court quashed the appellate order dated May 17, 2023, and the subsequent order by the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated August 11, 2025. The matter was remanded to the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh on merits, without dismissing it solely on the ground of delay, after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to cooperate and not seek unnecessary adjournments. The initial order in original was not directly addressed in the final holding but was implicitly set aside by the remand of the appeal.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging three orders: an order in original dated December 23, 2021, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Lucknow; an order in appeal dated May 17, 2023, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST and Central Excise, Lucknow; and a final order dated August 11, 2025, passed by the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad. The petitioner contended that the initial order under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, was ex-parte and passed without an opportunity of hearing. Furthermore, the appeal was rejected on grounds of delay without considering that notices were allegedly sent to a hotel address that was closed during the Covid-19 pandemic and that the petitioner was seriously ill. The respondents argued that multiple letters and a show cause notice were issued, and the petitioner failed to respond, leading to the order. They also contended that the appeal was rightly rejected due to a delay of over three months.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order in original dated December 23, 2021, passed under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, is liable to be set aside for being ex-parte and passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as mandated by the statute? 2. Whether the appellate order dated May 17, 2023, which rejected the petitioner's appeal on the ground of delay, is sustainable, considering the petitioner's submissions regarding the non-service of notices due to the closure of their hotel address during the Covid-19 period and their serious illness, and the alleged failure of the appellate authority to consider the medical documents submitted for condonation of delay? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the initial order was ex-parte, violating the statutory requirement of a hearing. They also contended that the appeal was rejected on delay without considering the genuine reasons for the delay, including the closure of their business premises during Covid-19 and their personal illness, supported by medical documents. They relied on a previous judgment in Writ Tax No. 151 of 2025 (M/S Santosh Traders Through Proprietor Santosh Kumar versus State of U.P and others) which dealt with similar issues of delay and bona fide reasons. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents asserted that several letters and a show cause notice were issued to the petitioner, and the order was passed only after the petitioner failed to respond. They maintained that the appeal was correctly rejected due to a delay of over three months.