Bharat Aluminium Company Limited vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the challenge to the order dated December 5, 2023, passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) is appealable before the Appellate Tribunal. However, since the Appellate Tribunal is not in existence, the petitioner could have approached the learned Single Judge. The Court found no error in the order passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), noting that the appeal was filed with a delay of 1 year and 1 month and no cogent reason was provided for such delay. Regarding the challenge to clause 5 of the impugned notification, the Court held that a plain reading of the clause makes it clear that no appeal would be admissible under the notification in respect of a demand not involving tax. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's plea to declare clause 5 as ultra vires, stating that a clause of a notification cannot be declared ultra vires merely because it is not beneficial to a party or an individual, especially when it does not bypass a remedy available under the law. The Court dismissed the writ petitions but granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal or the learned Single Judge.

Facts

The petitioner, Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (BALCO), filed multiple writ petitions challenging an order dated December 5, 2023, passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), State Tax, Bilaspur, and also sought to quash clause 5 of an impugned notification. BALCO had applied for a refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) of GST Compensation Cess paid on coal for various months. The Assistant Commissioner (State Tax) rejected these refund applications. BALCO appealed these rejections before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), but these appeals were dismissed on the grounds of delay, citing clause 5 of the impugned notification. The notification was issued to allow appeals that were delayed due to issues with the online upload of orders. BALCO's appeals were filed with a delay of 1 year and 1 month from the prescribed time limit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated December 5, 2023, passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) is amenable to challenge before the High Court in writ jurisdiction, given the existence of an Appellate Tribunal? 2. Whether clause 5 of the impugned notification, which states that no appeal shall be admissible in respect of a demand not involving tax, is ultra vires the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned notification was issued to provide relief to taxpayers who faced delays in filing appeals due to the online uploading of orders. They contended that their appeals were dismissed solely on the grounds of delay, and the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not considering the intent of the notification. The petitioner also sought to declare clause 5 of the notification as ultra vires. Revenue's Arguments: The respondents argued that the order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) is appealable before the Appellate Tribunal. They also contended that clause 5 of the notification is clear and unambiguous, and it cannot be declared ultra vires simply because it is not beneficial to the petitioner. The respondents highlighted that the petitioner's appeals were filed with an inordinate delay and without cogent reasons.