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, which they did not. Regarding the challenge to clause 5 of the impugned notification, the Court found no error in the order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals). A plain reading of clause 5 clearly states that no appeal under the notification is admissible for a demand not involving tax. The petitioner's case involved a refund of tax which was rejected, and their appeal was dismissed on limitation. The Court found no cogent reason to declare clause 5 ultra vires the Constitution. The Court reasoned 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. 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 to be filed within an extended period due to delays in 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 reason was provided for this delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated December 5, 2023, passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), State Tax, Bilaspur, is liable to be quashed, and if so, on what grounds? (Question of law and fact, concerning the dismissal of appeals on grounds of delay). 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 the validity of the notification clause). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned notification was issued to allow appeals to be heard despite delays caused by issues in communication of orders. They sought to quash the order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) and declare clause 5 of the notification ultra vires. The petitioner contended that the notification's purpose was to overcome delays in filing appeals, and their appeals were dismissed based on this notification. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the revenue or state respondents. However, it notes that the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) found the appeals filed by the petitioner to be delayed by 1 year and 1 month, with no cogent reason provided for such delay. The Court also observed that a plain reading of clause 5 of the notification makes it clear that no appeal would lie under it for a demand not involving tax.