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. While acknowledging the non-existence of the Appellate Tribunal, the Court noted that the petitioner had not approached the learned Single Judge for this relief. 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 demands not involving tax. The Court found no cogent reason presented by the petitioner to declare this clause ultra vires the Constitution. The Court reasoned that a clause in 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 so 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 petitioner argued that the notification was intended to allow appeals delayed due to issues with order communication, but their appeals were dismissed despite this. The appeals were filed with a delay of 1 year and 1 month from the prescribed time limit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated December 5, 2023, passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), State Tax, Bilaspur, is liable to be quashed on the grounds presented by the petitioner. 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 provide relief for appeals delayed due to the inability of parties to receive timely communication of orders. They argued that their appeals were dismissed based on this notification, despite the intended purpose of the notification being to condone such delays. They 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, the Court's findings suggest that the respondents likely relied on the existing provisions and the interpretation of the notification as applied by the appellate authority.