M/S.Sabeetha Roofing INDIA Private Limited vs. The Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise (Appeals)

Held

The Court held that the appellate Commissioner was duty-bound by the period of limitation under the Finance Act, 1994, and had correctly dismissed the appeal strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act. However, the Court acknowledged that the petitioner might have a case on merits. Taking judicial notice of the difficulties faced by assesses due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the disruption of economic activity, the Court found it inclined to rescue the petitioner. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit another 20% of the disputed tax within 30 days from the date of receiving a copy of the order. Upon such deposit, the first respondent (appellate Commissioner) was directed to consider the petitioner's appeal and dispose of it on merits and in accordance with law. The Court noted that the petitioner had not disputed the amount of Rs. 40,100/- towards late payment charges. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/S. Sabeetha Roofing India Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals). The appellate Commissioner had rejected the petitioner's statutory appeal, filed under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, on the grounds of limitation. The original assessment order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of GST & Central Excise on 22.03.2021. The petitioner contended that there was a partial delay in filing the appeal, which they attributed to operational disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The appeal was eventually filed on 16.09.2022. The petitioner had deposited Rs. 61,428/-, approximately 20% of the total disputed amount of Rs. 4,20,766/-, before the appellate authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate Commissioner was justified in rejecting the petitioner's statutory appeal solely on the ground of limitation, considering the prevailing circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the directions issued by the Supreme Court regarding condonation of delays? (Question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation and application of limitation provisions under the Finance Act, 1994 and the impact of Supreme Court directives). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that there was a partial delay in filing the appeal, which was exacerbated by the operational standstill due to the COVID-19 pandemic. They relied on Supreme Court directions that extended limitation periods and cited decisions in S. Brithivirajan Vs. Joint Commissioner and Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd., Vs. Union of India to support their claim for condonation of delay. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the writ petition was devoid of merits. They contended that despite the Supreme Court's condonation of delays post-COVID-19 outbreak, the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity, and therefore, the writ petition challenging the appellate order should be dismissed.