Praveen Murarka Prop. M/S Modware INDIA vs. CGST And Central Excise

Held

The High Court held that the appellate authority's rejection of the appeal on the grounds of delay, without properly considering the petitioner's contentions regarding the non-receipt of the original order and the date of obtaining a copy, was neither proper, legal, nor justified. The Court found that the appellate authority ought to have verified whether the order was duly served, either physically or electronically, before making a decision. Deciding the condonation of delay application solely on pleadings, without such verification, rendered the impugned order unsustainable. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the matter was remitted back to the appellate authority to decide the appeal on its merits after due verification of facts and consideration of the petitioner's contentions. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Praveen Murarka, challenged an order dated 30/05/2024 passed by Respondent No. 1, which dismissed his appeal (Appeal No. 140/CGST/IND/APPL/2023-24) as time-barred. The petitioner contended that the original order was not uploaded on the GST portal, nor was any Speed Post communication received. He claimed to have learned of the order only upon receiving a demand notice on 10/01/2023. He then applied for and obtained a copy of the order on 09/02/2023, and filed his appeal on 11/04/2023. The petitioner argued that this filing was within the three-month limitation period prescribed by Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, as the order was communicated to him only upon receipt of the copy. The respondent opposed the petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner before Respondent No. 1 was within the prescribed limitation period under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, considering the alleged non-receipt of the original order and the date of obtaining a copy thereof? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the appeal was filed within the three-month period stipulated by Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, as the 'date on which the said decision or order is communicated' should be interpreted as the date he received a copy of the order, given the non-receipt of the original order or any other communication. He relied on the Chhattisgarh High Court's decision in Vinod Kumar Jain Vs. Additional Commissioner. Revenue's Arguments: The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 vehemently opposed the prayer, supporting the impugned order and praying for the rejection of the petition.