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) State Tax, Bilaspur, was appealable before the Appellate Tribunal. While acknowledging the non-existence of the Appellate Tribunal, the Court noted that the petitioner had not approached the learned Single Judge for this relief. Regarding the challenge to clause 5 of the impugned notification, the Court found no error in the order passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals). The Court reasoned that a plain reading of clause 5 clearly states that no appeal under the notification is admissible for demands not involving tax. The petitioner's claim for refund of tax was rejected, and their appeal was dismissed on limitation grounds. The Court found no cogent reason presented by the petitioner to declare clause 5 ultra vires the Constitution. The Court concluded that a clause in a notification cannot be declared ultra vires simply because it is not beneficial to a party or if it bypasses an available legal remedy. Therefore, the relief sought by the petitioner to declare clause 5 ultra vires was not accepted. The writ petitions were dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal or the learned Single Judge if advised.

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 filed appeals before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), which were dismissed due to the delay in filing, citing clause 5 of the impugned notification. The notification was issued to allow appeals against orders passed under Sections 73 or 74 of the CGST Act, where appeals were rejected solely on grounds of delay. The Joint Commissioner noted that BALCO's appeals were filed with a delay of 1 year and 1 month from the prescribed time limit, without cogent reasons.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated December 5, 2023, passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) State Tax, Bilaspur, is liable to be quashed. 2. Whether clause 5 of the impugned notification, which states that no appeal under the notification shall be admissible in respect of a demand not involving tax, is ultra vires the Constitution of India. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned notification was issued to allow appeals that were delayed due to issues with the communication of orders from the department's web portal. They argued that clause 5 of this notification, which bars appeals in cases not involving tax, is arbitrary and should be declared ultra vires. The petitioner sought to challenge the order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) and the validity of clause 5 of the notification. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the respondents. However, it notes that the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) found the appeals filed by the petitioner to be delayed by over a year and without cogent reasons, and that the petitioner had not availed the remedy of approaching the Appellate Tribunal or the learned Single Judge for the challenge to the order dated December 5, 2023.