M/S.Sri Tanveer Ahmed Mohammed vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sri Tanveer Ahmed Mohammed, challenged an order dated 19.10.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax (acting as the appellate authority). The petitioner's appeal, filed on 25.02.2023, was rejected as time-barred without a personal hearing. The petitioner contends that the finding of delay was factually incorrect and that the appellate authority erred by not providing an opportunity to be heard, thus violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner sought to demonstrate that the appeal was filed promptly, supported by speed post receipts and tracking records. The revenue supported the impugned order based on its findings.

Held

The Court found substance in the petitioner's argument that the principles of natural justice ought to have been followed. It reasoned that if an opportunity of hearing had been provided, the petitioner could have attempted to demonstrate that there was either no delay in filing the appeal or that the delay was condonable. The Court held that passing the impugned appellate order without affording this opportunity rendered it unsustainable under judicial scrutiny. Consequently, the impugned appellate order dated 19.10.2023 was set aside. The petitioner was directed to appear before the appellate authority on 27.02.2025 at 11:30 AM, without requiring a separate notice, for a personal hearing and a fresh order in accordance with the law. The Court explicitly stated that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate order rejecting the petitioner's appeal as time-barred, without affording a personal hearing, violates the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to be heard, as contemplated under the relevant provisions of the GST Act and Rules? Contentions: Petitioner: The appellate authority erred by rejecting the appeal as time-barred without providing a personal hearing. The petitioner claims the finding of delay is factually incorrect and that they could have demonstrated this had they been given an opportunity to be heard. They rely on the principle that the doctrine of 'useless formality' cannot be invoked when a party has a genuine chance to prove their case. They seek a direction for the appellate authority to hear them on the aspect of condonation of delay and the appeal itself. Respondents: The learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC supported the impugned appellate order based on the findings contained therein.