Vinaya Kumar Pandey vs. Joint Commissioner Of State Tax (Appeals) Cum Appellate Authority, Faridabad Adn Anr.

Facts

The petitioner, Sh. Vinaya Kumar Pandey, filed a writ petition challenging two orders: one dated 04.11.2019 by the ETO, Gurugram, and another dated 28.06.2022 by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals), Faridabad. The appellate authority dismissed the petitioner's appeal on the grounds that it was filed late by 872 days. The petitioner had filed the appeal before the Appellate Authority on 30.04.2022. A certified copy of the impugned order dated 04.11.2019 was submitted on 23.06.2022. The petitioner relied on Supreme Court and High Court judgments regarding extensions of limitation periods.

Held

The Court held that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority was within the period of limitation. The Supreme Court's suo motu order in W.P.(C) No.3 of 2020 extended the period of limitation by 90 days from 01.03.2022. The appeal was filed on 30.04.2022, which falls within this extended period. The Court further held that the submission of a certified copy of the impugned order after the expiry of the limitation period does not render the appeal beyond limitation, as a certified copy is not mandatorily required to be filed along with the appeal. The Court relied on its own judgment in L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, which held that even a photocopy of the order can be attached while filing an appeal. Consequently, the impugned order dated 28.06.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority was set aside. The Appellate Authority was directed to decide the appeal on merits expeditiously, considering the photocopy of the impugned order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority was within the prescribed period of limitation, considering the Supreme Court's suo motu order extending periods of limitation, and the fact that the appeal was filed on 30.04.2022, which falls within 90 days from 01.03.2022 as per the Supreme Court's direction? 2. Whether the submission of a certified copy of the order after the expiry of the limitation period renders the appeal beyond limitation, or if a photocopy suffices for filing the appeal? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the appeal was filed within the extended period of 90 days as per the Supreme Court's suo motu order in W.P.(C) No.3 of 2020. They also argued that filing a certified copy after the limitation period does not make the appeal time-barred, as a photocopy can be attached, citing the High Court's decision in L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents.