M/S Spicejet Limited vs. The Commissioner Of Customs And Central Tax (Appeals - I)

Facts

M/s. SpiceJet Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court seeking a direction to the Commissioner of Customs and Central Tax (Appeals - I) to number their appeal against Order-in-Original No. 184/2022-ADJN-CUS-ADC dated 13.03.2023. The petitioner had filed this appeal with a delay of 115 days. The petition also sought a declaration that the inaction of the appellate authority in not numbering the appeal was arbitrary and unconstitutional. The petitioner sought an opportunity to present their appeal and argue the case on merits. The respondents are the Commissioner of Customs and Central Tax (Appeals - I) and the Additional Commissioner of Customs.

Held

The Court held that the relief sought by the petitioner was innocuous. It directed the respondent No. 1 (Commissioner of Customs and Central Tax (Appeals - I)) to immediately register the appeal filed by the petitioners on 11.09.2023. The Court clarified that even if the appeal is barred by time, it should still be registered and decided on its own merits. The appellate authority has the power to reject the appeal if it lacks the power to condone the delay beyond a particular period or if satisfactory grounds for the delay are not provided. Conversely, if the law permits and a satisfactory explanation for the delay is shown, the appeal can be allowed. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the appeal or the aspect of limitation. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the inaction of the Commissioner of Customs and Central Tax (Appeals - I) in not numbering the petitioner's appeal, filed with a delay of 115 days, is arbitrary and unconstitutional, violating Article 21 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the inaction of the appellate authority was arbitrary and unconstitutional. They sought a direction to number the appeal and provide an opportunity to argue the case on merits. Respondents' Argument: The learned counsel for the Department did not oppose granting the relief sought but contended that the aspect of limitation should be left open for the appellate authority to decide strictly in accordance with law.