Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. Viraj Industries Sidco Industrial Complex Bari Brahmana Jammu J And K

Held

The Court held that the explanation provided by the appellant for the delay of 1490 days was not acceptable. The Court noted that a similar explanation had been tendered by the appellant in a previous case, CEA No. 10/2020, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of the same court for being barred by limitation. The appellant's counsel fairly submitted that the present case was identical to CEA No. 10/2020, with no additional grounds for condonation. Therefore, the Court found that the reasoning applied in CEA No. 10/2020 would apply on all fours to the present application. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds of being barred by limitation. No specific provisions of the GST Act were discussed as the matter was decided on limitation.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K), Jammu, filed an appeal before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh against an order dated 06.03.2018 passed by CESTAT, Chandigarh. The appeal was delayed by 1490 days. The appellant explained the delay by stating that the decision to file the appeal was taken after the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors (2020) 3 SCC 492. However, the appellant's counsel conceded that the grounds for condonation of delay were identical to those in a previous case, CEA No. 10/2020, which was dismissed by the same court for being barred by limitation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 1490 days in filing the appeal can be condoned, considering the explanation provided by the appellant? The appellant argued that the delay was attributable to the time taken to obtain legal advice and the subsequent decision to file the appeal after the Supreme Court's ruling in M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors (2020) 3 SCC 492, which they believed settled the law. The respondent did not present any arguments as recorded in the judgment. The Court had to decide if the appellant's explanation for the significant delay was sufficient to warrant condonation, especially in light of previous judgments of the same court on similar grounds.