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 a significant delay of 1 year and 1 month, and no cogent reasons were provided to justify this delay. The Court found no error in the appellate authority's decision to dismiss the appeals on grounds of limitation. Regarding the challenge to clause 5 of the impugned notification, the Court held that a plain reading of the clause clearly states that no appeal under the notification is admissible 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 basis 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 concluded that the relief sought by the petitioner to declare clause 5 ultra vires did not merit acceptance. The Court also noted that the appeals against the order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) are generally appealable before the Appellate Tribunal, and while the Tribunal is not in existence, the petitioner could have approached the learned Single Judge, which they did not do.

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 the 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 issued to allow appeals that were delayed due to issues with the online uploading of orders. The Joint Commissioner noted that BALCO's appeals were filed with a delay of 1 year and 1 month, and no cogent reasons were provided for this delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated December 5, 2023, passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), State Tax, Bilaspur, is legally sustainable, particularly in light of the petitioner's delay in filing appeals and the applicability of 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? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned notification was issued to provide relief to assessees who faced delays in filing appeals due to orders being uploaded on the department's web portal but not effectively communicated. They argued that the delay in filing their appeals should be condoned under the provisions of this notification. Furthermore, they sought to declare clause 5 of the notification as ultra vires, implying it unfairly restricts their right to appeal. 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 of law and the findings of the appellate authority regarding the delay and the interpretation of clause 5 of the notification.