M/S. J. J. Electrotech Private Limited, Through Its Authorized Signatory, Promod Kumar Tiwari vs. Union Of INDIA, Thro Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax And Central Excise, Jamshedpur
Held
The Court held that the appellate authority's view that the appeal was not filed within time was perverse and could not be sustained. The Court noted that the appeal, while filed after the initial three-month period, was within the one-month condonable period. The appellate authority ought to have considered the appeal on its merits. The ratio decidendi is that an appellate authority cannot dismiss an appeal solely on the ground of a minor delay if such delay falls within the condonable period prescribed by law, and the appeal should be considered on its merits. The Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order dated 31.12.2024, and remitted the matter back to the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) for consideration on merits.
Facts
M/s. J. J. Electrotech Private Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 31.12.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Ranchi. This order dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an Order-in-Original dated 05.09.2023. The dismissal was based on the ground that the appeal was not filed within the prescribed time limit. The petitioner had filed the appeal online on 05.12.2023. Section 107 of the relevant Act prescribes a limitation period of three months for filing an appeal, with a further condonable period of one month.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner on 05.12.2023 was within the time prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST Act, considering the three-month limitation period and the one-month condonable period. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that although the appeal was filed beyond the initial three-month period, it was within the one-month condonable period. Therefore, the appellate authority should have considered the appeal on its merits rather than dismissing it solely on the ground of delay. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the revenue or state that they made any arguments.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (T) No. 1065 of 2025
--- M/s. J. J. Electrotech Private Limited, (a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956/2013), having its registered office at 212, Akashdeep Plaza, Golmuri, Town Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. Golmuri, District East Singhbhum-831003, through its Authorized Signatory, namely, Promod Kumar Tiwari, aged about 55 years, son of Damodar Tiwari, resident of 33, Block Road, Ratu, P.O. & P.S. Ratu, District Ranchi- 835002 (Jharkhand). .....Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India, through Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Jamshedpur having its office at Outer Circular Road, Bistupur, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. Bistupur, District East Singhbhum-831001 (Jharkhand).
The Additional Commissioner (Appeals) Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Ranchi, having its office at 2nd and 3rd Floor, Grand Emerald, Ashok Nagar, Main Road, P.O. & P.S. Argora, District Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand)
The Superintendent of Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Range Golmuri Mines, Division-II, Jamshedpur
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 Jharkhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.