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, acknowledging the non-existence of the Appellate Tribunal, the Court noted that the petitioner had the option to approach the learned Single Judge, which they had not pursued. 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 states that no appeal under the notification is admissible for demands not involving tax. The Court reasoned that the petitioner's appeals were dismissed due to limitation, and they failed to provide cogent reasons for the inordinate delay. The Court found no basis to declare clause 5 as ultra vires the Constitution, as it did not benefit the petitioner and did not prevent them from pursuing remedies available under the law. The Court concluded that the relief sought by the petitioner to declare clause 5 ultra vires did not merit acceptance. The petitioner was granted liberty 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 this rejection 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 that were delayed due to issues with the online uploading of orders. 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 the order dated December 5, 2023, passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) is appealable before the Appellate Tribunal or a learned Single Judge, given the non-existence of the Appellate Tribunal. 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 argued that the order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) could be challenged before the learned Single Judge due to the non-existence of the Appellate Tribunal. They also sought to declare clause 5 of the notification as ultra vires, implying it unfairly restricts their right to appeal, especially when the delay was a consequence of administrative issues in order communication. The petitioner contended that the notification was intended to provide relief for delayed appeals, and its application in their case, leading to dismissal, was unjust. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the respondents. However, the Court's findings indicate that the respondents likely relied on the existing statutory provisions and the terms of the notification itself, particularly clause 5, to justify the dismissal of the appeals on grounds of limitation and the nature of the demand.