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 such appeals 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. The Court reasoned that a plain reading of clause 5 clearly states that no appeal under the notification is admissible for a demand not involving tax. The petitioner's case involved a refund of tax which was rejected, and their appeals were dismissed on limitation. The Court found no cogent reason presented by the petitioner to declare clause 5 ultra vires the Constitution. The Court concluded that 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 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 impugned notification was issued to allow appeals against orders passed under Sections 73 or 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, where appeals were not filed within the prescribed time, provided the demand did not involve tax. BALCO's appeals were filed with a delay of 1 year and 1 month.

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 Joint Commissioner's order was appealable before the Appellate Tribunal or a learned Single Judge due to the non-existence of the Appellate Tribunal. They also sought to declare clause 5 of the impugned notification as ultra vires, implying it unfairly barred their appeals. The petitioner contended that the notification was intended to overcome delays in filing appeals caused by orders being uploaded but not communicated, and that their appeals should be heard on merits. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the respondents. However, the court's reasoning implies that the respondents likely defended the order of the Joint Commissioner and the validity of the notification.