Sharad Ramchandra Jadhav vs. Commissioner Of CGST And Cex Appeals And Anr
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sharad Ramchandra Jadhav, challenged an Order-in-Original dated December 29, 2022, and an order dated January 29, 2024, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the petitioner's appeal on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner contended that the Order-in-Original was served on March 9, 2023, and the appeal was filed on March 29, 2023, which was within the prescribed limitation period from the date of service. The petitioner also raised a substantive issue regarding the levy of service tax on a practicing advocate, citing previous High Court judgments.
Held
The Court held that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in rejecting the petitioner's appeal on the ground of limitation. The Court found that the Order-in-Original dated December 29, 2022, was served on the petitioner on March 9, 2023, and the appeal was filed on March 29, 2023. This filing was within the prescribed period of limitation from the date of service. Consequently, the impugned order dated January 29, 2024, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for disposal of the petitioner's appeal on its own merits, expeditiously. The Court also noted that the Appellate Authority would consider the precedents regarding the levy of service tax on practicing advocates, and all contentions of both parties on this substantive issue were left open to be determined by the Appellate Authority.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner (Appeals) was barred by limitation, considering the date of service of the Order-in-Original and the date of filing the appeal? (Question of fact and law, concerning the interpretation of limitation periods under GST law). Petitioner's Arguments: - The appeal was filed within the prescribed limitation period as it was filed within 30 days from the date of service of the Order-in-Original (March 9, 2023), with the appeal being filed on March 29, 2023. - The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in rejecting the appeal solely on the ground of limitation without considering the merits. - The substantive issue of service tax levy on practicing advocates, as decided in cases like 'Adv. Pooja Patil Vs. Deputy Commissioner & Ors.' and 'Ish Kiran Jain Vs. The Assistant Commissioner & Ors.', was not considered due to the wrongful invocation of the limitation bar. Respondents' Arguments: - The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents regarding the limitation period or the substantive issue.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
10-WP.11738.24.DOCX PPN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURI ICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11738 OF 2024 Sharad Ramchandra Jadhav … Petitioner Versus Commissioner of CGST & CEX Appeals & Anr. … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Mr. Sachin Punde a/w Mr. Jotiram R. Jadhav for the Petitioner. Mr. Y. R. Mishra a/w Mr. Abhishek Mishra for the Respondents. _____________________________________________________ CORAM : M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATED : 30 June 2025 PC. (M. S. Sonak, J.) :-
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately at the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, admits that there is some mistake in the prayer clause (a) regarding the dates of the impugned order. Accordingly, we grant leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Reverification is dispensed with.
The challenge in this petition is to the Order-in-Original dated 29 December 2022 and the order dated 29 January PRACHI PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR Date: 2025.07.01 16:08:26 +0530
10-WP.11738.24.DOCX 2024 made by the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the petitioner’s appeal on the ground of bar of limitation.
The record shows that the Order-in-Original dated 29 December 2022 was served upon the petitioner only on 9 March 2023. The appeal was filed on 29 March 2023. Thus, from the date of service of the order and the date of knowledge of the contents of the order, the appeal was well within the prescribed period of limitation.
The Commissioner (Appeals) was therefore not justified in rejecting the appeal by invoking the bar of limitation. On this short ground, we set aside the impugned order dated 29 January 2024 and remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for disposal of the petitioner’s appeal in accordance Commissioner & Ors.1 and Ish Kiran Jain Vs. The Assistant Commissioner & Ors.2 has held that no service tax can be imposed upon practising advocates. He submits that by wrongfully invoking the bar of limitation, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the above decisions.
Now that we are setting aside the impugned order dated 29 January 2024 and remanding the matter to the Appellate Authority, we are sure that the Appellate Authority will take 1 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2857 2 Writ Petition (L) No.25269 of 2023 decided on 16 October 2023 10-WP.11738.24.DOCX into consideration the above-referred precedents. In any event, all contentions of all parties, including the contentions on behalf of the respondents, as to why the decisions are inapplicable, are left open to be determined by the Appellate Authority.
The rule is made absolute in the above terms without any order for costs.
All concerned must act on the 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.