Bharat Aluminium Company Limited vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The High Court held that the challenge to the order dated December 5, 2023, passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) was primarily appealable before the Appellate Tribunal. However, acknowledging the non-existence of the Appellate Tribunal at the time, the Court noted that such matters could be challenged before a learned Single Judge, a recourse the petitioner had not taken. Regarding the challenge to clause 5 of the impugned notification, the Court found no error in the Joint Commissioner's order. A plain reading of clause 5 clearly indicated that no appeal would be admissible under the notification for demands 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 ultra vires the Constitution, especially as the petitioner's appeal was barred by limitation and they could not avail the benefit of the extension granted by the notification. Therefore, the relief sought by the petitioner 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 then filed appeals before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), which were dismissed on the grounds of delay. The Joint Commissioner noted that the appeals were filed approximately 1 year and 1 month after the prescribed time limit, and no cogent reasons were provided for this delay. The impugned notification was issued to allow appeals to be heard where delays occurred due to orders being uploaded on the department's web portal but not effectively communicated to the parties.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated December 5, 2023, passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) is amenable to challenge before the High Court in its writ jurisdiction, given the existence of an Appellate Tribunal and the availability of a remedy before the learned Single Judge. 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 overcome delays in filing appeals caused by the non-communication of orders. They sought to challenge the order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) and declare clause 5 of the notification 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 and without cogent reasons, and that clause 5 of the notification clearly states that appeals are not admissible for demands not involving tax. The High Court also observed that a clause of a notification cannot be declared ultra vires merely because it is not beneficial to a party or bypasses a remedy available under the law.