Asics INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. The Union Of INDIA And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
Two writ petitions were filed by Asics India Pvt. Ltd. challenging orders passed by the appellate authority on August 30, 2024. These orders dismissed the petitioner's appeals on the grounds that they were filed 7-8 days beyond the prescribed limitation period and without applications for condonation of delay. The Orders-In-Original (O-I-O) were dated December 13, 2023, but electronically uploaded on December 20, 2023, and served by post on January 3, 2024. The appeals were instituted on March 27, 2024, and March 28, 2024. The petitioner contended that the appeals were filed within the three-month period from the postal service date, but if calculated from the electronic upload date, there was a slight delay. The petitioner also argued they were heard on merits, and the appellate authority failed to address the substance of the appeals.
Held
The Court held that the appeals were effectively filed within the prescribed period of limitation, considering the date of postal communication of the Order-In-Original. The Court noted that the petitioner's version of events, including the date of postal service, was not contested. Furthermore, the Court observed that Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, allows for condonation of delay up to one month upon showing sufficient cause. The Court found sufficient cause evident in this case, especially given the discrepancy in the O-I-O dates and the fact that the petitioner was heard on merits. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned orders of the appellate authority and remitted the appeals for consideration on their merits. All contentions on the merits of the matter were left open for the appellate authority to decide. The challenge to a Notification dated March 31, 2023, was expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeals filed by the petitioner were within the prescribed period of limitation under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, considering the discrepancy between the electronic upload date and the postal service date of the Order-In-Original? 2. Whether the appellate authority erred in dismissing the appeals solely on the ground of limitation without considering the merits, especially when the petitioner was heard on merits and the delay was minimal (7-8 days)? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the appeals were filed within the statutory limitation period of three months from the date of postal service of the Order-In-Original. They further contended that even if there was a minor delay based on the electronic upload date, it was a matter of abundant caution and sufficient cause, particularly as they were heard on merits by the appellate authority. They relied on the fact that their averments regarding the postal service date were not contested. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (Union of India & Ors.).
Sections Cited
Section 107, Section 107(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
19 & 20-WP.5809.25 & 6567.25.DOCX PPN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURI ICTION (19) WRIT PETITION NO. 5809 OF 2025 Asics India Pvt. Ltd. … Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. … Respondents WITH (20) WRIT PETITION NO. 6567 OF 2025 Asics India Pvt. Ltd. … Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Mr. Kashish Gupta a/w Mr. Vaibhav P. Patankar and Ms. Anchal Gupta i/by Patankar & Associates for Petitioner. Mr. Ram Ochani a/w Ms. Sangeeta Yadav for Respondent Nos.2 to 5. Ms. Shruti D. Vyas, Addl. G.P. a/w Mr. Aditya R. Deolekar, AGP for Respondent No.6-State. _____________________________________________________ CORAM : M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATED : 8 July 2025 PC. (Per M.S. SONAK, J.) :-
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the parties state that both these petitions can be disposed of by a common order, since they raise substantially similar issues of fact and law. PRACHI PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR Date: 2025.07.14 10:09:01 +0530
19 & 20-WP.5809.25 & 6567.25.DOCX
Rule in both these petitions. Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
In both these petitions, the challenge is to the impugned orders passed in appeal dated 30 August 2024 by which the petitioner’s appeals have been dismissed on the ground that they were filed 7/8 days beyond the prescribed period of limitation and further, they were not accompanied by any application seeking condonation of delay.
The records show that the Order-In-Original (O-I-O) in both these petitions is dated 13 December 2023. However, the same were electronically uploaded on 20 December 2023. By post these orders were served upon the petitioners on 3 January 2024. 6. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5809 of 2025 instituted the appeal on 27 March 2024 and the petitioner in Writ Petition No.6567 of 2025 instituted the appeal on 28 March 2024. 7. Therefore, going by the date of postal communication, the appeals were instituted within the prescribed period of three months provided in Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. However, if we are to go by the date of electronic uploading of the O-I-O, there might be a delay of 7/8 days.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, as a matter of abundant caution, had kept ready for filing applications for condonation of delay on the date they were called for personal hearing. They however, 19 & 20-WP.5809.25 & 6567.25.DOCX submit that they were informed that the matter could be argued on merits since the O-I-O was served by post only on 3 January 2024. Accordingly, arguments were advanced and heard on the merits of the appeals. However, the impugned orders do not address the merits of the matter, but dismiss the appeals by invoking the bar of limitation and faulting the petitioners for not filing applications seeking condonation of delay of 7/8 days.
The petitioners have made the above averments in the petitions which have not been contested.
In any event, from the circumstance that the petitioners were heard on merits, we are inclined to accept the petitioner's version. Besides, under Section 107 (4) of the CGST Act, delay of further 1 month beyond the prescribed limitation period of three months is condonable upon showing sufficient cause. In the present case, sufficient cause is writ large because the petitioners went back on the date of the postal communication.
Upon cumulative consideration of the facts and circumstances, therefore, we quash the impugned orders and remit the petitioner's appeals for consideration on merits.
All contentions of all parties on the merits of the matter are left open to be decided by the appellate authority pursuant to this remand.
The rule in these petitions is made absolute to the above extent only without any order for costs. 19 & 20-WP.5809.25 & 6567.25.DOCX
The petitioners to appear before the Appellate Authority on 28 July 2025 at 11:00 a.m. and file an authenticated copy of this order. Based upon the same, the Appellate Authority may fix an appropriate date for hearing of the appeal on merits so that the appeals can be disposed of expeditiously.
In Writ Petition No.5809 of 2025, the challenge to Notification dated 31 March 2023 is left open since we have not adjudicated upon the same.
All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order. (Jitendra Jain, J) (M.S. Sonak, J)
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.