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) was not erroneous. The petitioner's appeals were filed with an inordinate delay of 1 year and 1 month from the prescribed time limit, and no cogent reasons were provided for such delay. Regarding the challenge to clause 5 of the impugned notification, the Court found that a plain reading of the clause clearly states that no appeal under the notification is admissible for a demand not involving tax. The petitioner's claim for refund of tax was rejected, and their appeal was dismissed on limitation. The Court found no grounds to declare clause 5 as ultra vires the Constitution, especially when the petitioner was barred by limitation and could not avail the benefit of the extension granted by the notification. The Court noted that a clause of a notification cannot be declared ultra vires simply because it is not beneficial to a party or because it bypasses a remedy available under the law. Therefore, the relief sought by the petitioner to declare clause 5 invalid was not accepted.

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, and subsequent appeals filed before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) were dismissed on the grounds of delay. The delay was attributed to the petitioner's inability to file appeals within the prescribed time, as the orders were uploaded on the department's web portal but not effectively communicated. The impugned notification was issued to allow appeals to be heard and delays condoned. However, BALCO's appeals were dismissed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) for being filed with a delay of 1 year and 1 month, with no cogent reasons provided for the delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated December 5, 2023, passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), State Tax, Bilaspur, dismissing the petitioner's appeals on grounds of delay, is legally sustainable? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 and the impugned notification). 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? (Question of law, concerning constitutional validity). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned notification was issued to allow appeals to be heard and delays condoned, especially when orders were uploaded but not effectively communicated, causing delays in filing appeals. They contended that their appeals were dismissed due to this delay, and sought to challenge the validity of clause 5 of the notification. The petitioner implicitly argued that the dismissal of their appeals on delay was unjust given the circumstances leading to the notification. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the respondents. However, the Court's findings indicate that the respondents likely relied on the existing provisions of law and the terms of the notification, particularly clause 5, to justify the dismissal of the appeals.