Bharat Aluminium Company Limited vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the order dated December 5, 2023, passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) is indeed appellable before the Appellate Tribunal. However, acknowledging the non-existence of the Appellate Tribunal, the Court noted that such appeals could be challenged before a learned Single Judge, a remedy the petitioner had not pursued. Regarding the challenge to clause 5 of the impugned notification, the Court found no merit. A plain reading of clause 5 clearly states that no appeal under the notification is admissible for demands not involving tax. The Court observed that the petitioner's appeals were dismissed due to limitation, and they failed to provide cogent reasons for the inordinate delay. The Court concluded that a clause in a notification cannot be declared ultra vires simply because it is not beneficial to a party or because it prevents them from bypassing a statutory remedy. The Court found no error in the Joint Commissioner's order and dismissed the prayer to declare clause 5 ultra vires. The Court also noted that the petitioner's appeals were barred by limitation and they could not avail the benefit of the extension granted by the notification.

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 impugned notification was issued to allow appeals to be filed within an extended period, condoning delays caused by issues with the communication of orders. BALCO's appeals were filed with a delay of 1 year and 1 month from the prescribed time limit, and no cogent reasons were provided for this delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated December 5, 2023, passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) is appealable before the Appellate Tribunal or a learned Single Judge, considering the non-existence of the Appellate Tribunal? 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 argued that the order dated December 5, 2023, passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) is challengeable before the learned Single Judge due to the non-existence of the Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner also sought to declare clause 5 of the impugned notification as ultra vires, implying it unfairly restricts their right to appeal. The petitioner contended that the notification was intended to provide relief for delayed appeals, and its dismissal on grounds of delay, particularly due to clause 5, defeats its purpose. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents did not explicitly record arguments in the provided text. However, the Court's reasoning indicates that the respondents likely relied on the existing statutory provisions and the terms of the notification itself. The Court found no error in the order passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) and found no cogent reason to declare clause 5 of the notification ultra vires.