Magadh Engineering Works Through Its Partner Mohd Khwaja Sarwar Khan vs. Central Goods And Service Tax And Central Excise Through The Principal Commissioner CGST And Cx

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition with a liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) (Respondent No. 2). The Court directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the appeal, specifically with respect to the service of the order-in-original. The Court did not decide on the merits of the case or the exact date from which the limitation period should be calculated, but rather facilitated the filing of the appeal. The primary finding was that the petitioner should be allowed to present their case before the appellate authority, who would then examine the issue of limitation in light of the service of the order-in-original. The alternative prayer to quash the order-in-original and related demands was not adjudicated upon.

Facts

The petitioner, Magadh Engineering Works, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court challenging an order-in-original dated August 26, 2020, passed by the Joint Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Ranchi. The petitioner sought a direction to entertain their appeal against this order, considering the limitation period to start from the date of service of a demand notice dated February 3, 2023. Alternatively, the petitioner sought to quash the order-in-original, consequential demands, and a notice dated March 23, 2023, issued to their banker for payment of Rs. 1,99,45,079/- plus interest. The petitioner's counsel indicated an intention to prefer an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The respondents objected, arguing the appeal was barred by limitation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner can be permitted to prefer an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the order-in-original dated August 26, 2020, and if so, whether the limitation period for filing such appeal should be reckoned from the date of service of the demand notice dated February 3, 2023, or from the date of the order-in-original. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the appeal should be entertained, and the starting point for limitation should be the date of service of the demand notice, implying a dispute regarding the effective date of communication of the order-in-original. The petitioner sought to prefer an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Revenue's contention: The respondents contended that the appeal is hopelessly barred by limitation, as the outer limit for filing an appeal is 90 days, and any appeal filed beyond this period is not condonable.