Bharat Aluminium Company Limited vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that clause 5 of Notification No. 53/2023-Central Tax cannot be declared ultra vires simply because it is not beneficial to a party or because it prevents them from bypassing a remedy available under the law. A plain reading of clause 5 makes it clear that no appeal under the notification is admissible for a demand not involving tax. The Court found no error in the order dated December 5, 2023, passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), which dismissed BALCO's appeal on the grounds of limitation, noting an inordinate delay of 1 year and 1 month without cogent reasons. The Court also found no merit in the petitioner's plea to declare clause 5 of the notification ultra vires, as the petitioner's appeal was barred by limitation and they could not avail the benefit of the extended time period granted by the notification. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed, with liberty granted 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 orders dated December 5, 2023, passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), State Tax, Bilaspur. These orders dismissed BALCO's appeals against the rejection of its refund applications for unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) of GST Compensation Cess paid on coal. The appeals were dismissed on grounds of delay. BALCO also sought to quash clause 5 of an impugned notification (Notification No. 53/2023-Central Tax) which states that no appeal under the notification shall be admissible in respect of a demand not involving tax. The Joint Commissioner (Appeals) noted that BALCO's appeals were filed with a delay of 1 year and 1 month from the prescribed time limit, and no cogent reasons were provided for this delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether clause 5 of Notification No. 53/2023-Central Tax, which bars appeals in cases not involving tax, is ultra vires the Constitution of India, particularly in light of the petitioner's situation where their refund applications were rejected and appeals dismissed on limitation grounds? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned notification was issued to allow appeals that were delayed due to issues with the communication of orders. They contended that clause 5 of this notification should be declared ultra vires as it prevents them from availing the intended relief, effectively barring their appeal against the rejection of their refund claims. They sought to challenge the order dated December 5, 2023, and the validity of clause 5 of the notification. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents did not explicitly present arguments in the provided text. However, the Court's reasoning implies that the respondents would rely on the plain reading of the notification and the petitioner's failure to provide cogent reasons for the delay in filing appeals.