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) was appealable before the Appellate Tribunal. However, since the Tribunal was not in existence, the petitioner could have approached the learned Single Judge, which they did not. Regarding the dismissal of appeals on grounds of delay, the Court found no error in the order passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), noting that the appeals were filed with a delay of 1 year and 1 month, and no cogent reason was provided for such delay. Concerning the challenge to clause 5 of the impugned notification, the Court held that a plain reading of the clause clearly states that no appeal would be admissible under the notification for demands not involving tax. The petitioner failed to provide any grounds to demonstrate how this clause was ultra vires the Constitution. The Court concluded that the petitioner's appeals were barred by limitation and they could not avail the benefit of the extension granted by the notification. Therefore, the relief sought to declare clause 5 ultra vires was not accepted. The Court dismissed the writ petitions but granted liberty 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 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 against orders passed under Section 73 or 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, where appeals were rejected solely due to being filed beyond the prescribed time limit. BALCO's appeals were filed with a delay of 1 year and 1 month.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated December 5, 2023, passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) is liable to be quashed, considering it dismissed the petitioner's appeals on grounds of delay, despite the issuance of a notification intended to condone such delays? (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 and the CGST Act, 2017? (Question of law, concerning constitutional validity and statutory powers). 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. They argued that their appeals were dismissed based on this notification, and the dismissal was erroneous. They also sought to declare clause 5 of the notification as ultra vires. 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 to be filed with an inordinate delay of 1 year and 1 month, without cogent reasons, and dismissed them accordingly. The Court also found no error in the Joint Commissioner's order and found no basis to declare clause 5 ultra vires.