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. 185/2022-ADJN-CUS-ADC dated 14.03.2022. The petitioner had filed the appeal with a delay of approximately 115 days, which was pleaded as around 150 days by the petitioner themselves. The petitioner contended that the inaction of the appellate authority in not numbering the appeal was arbitrary and unconstitutional. The appeal was filed on 11.09.2023. The petitioner also sought condonation of the delay and an opportunity to argue their case on merits.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Commissioner of Customs and Central Tax (Appeals-I) to immediately register the appeal filed by the petitioner 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 the appellants have not provided satisfactory grounds for the delay. Conversely, if the law permits and a satisfactory explanation for the delay is shown, it can be allowed. The Court explicitly stated that appeals cannot be refused acceptance solely on the ground of being beyond the permissible limit of delay. The Bench made it clear that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the appeal or the aspect of limitation. The operative direction was to register the appeal and allow the appellate authority to decide it on merits, including the issue of delay.

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 against Order-in-Original No. 185/2022-ADJN-CUS-ADC dated 14.03.2022, is arbitrary, violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently warrants a direction to number the appeal and consider the condonation of delay application. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the appellate authority's failure to number the appeal was arbitrary and unconstitutional, violating their right to be heard. They sought a direction to consider their appeal and condone the delay. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the Department did not oppose granting the relief sought but stipulated that the aspect of limitation should be left open for the appellate authority to decide strictly in accordance with law. They did not oppose the registration of the appeal.