Praveen Murarka Prop. M/S Modwara INDIA vs. Jt. Commissioner Appeals

Held

The High Court held that the appellate authority's rejection of the appeal as time-barred, without a proper verification of service of the order-in-original, was not proper, legal, or justified. The Court found that the appellate authority ought to have given fair consideration to the petitioner's contentions and verified whether the order was duly served, either physically or electronically. Deciding the condonation of delay application solely on pleadings, without such verification, rendered the impugned order unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the delay in filing the appeal was condoned. 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.

Facts

The petitioner, Praveen Murarka, proprietor of M/s Modwara India, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 30/05/2024 passed by the Joint Commissioner Appeals (respondent No.1). This order dismissed the petitioner's appeal as time-barred. The petitioner contended that the order-in-original was not uploaded on the GST portal, nor was it received via speed post. Knowledge of the order-in-original came only upon receipt of a demand notice on 10/01/2023. The petitioner subsequently applied for and obtained a copy of the order on 09/02/2023, and filed the appeal on 11/04/2023. The petitioner argued that the appeal was filed within the prescribed three-month limitation period from the communication of the order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Joint Commissioner Appeals was within the prescribed limitation period under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, considering the alleged non-receipt of the order-in-original and its subsequent delayed supply. 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 order-in-original was not properly communicated. They claimed the order was not uploaded on the GST portal and not received via speed post, with knowledge only gained upon receiving a demand notice. The copy of the order was obtained later, and the appeal was filed promptly thereafter. Reliance was placed on the Chhattisgarh High Court's decision in Vinod Kumar Jain Vs. Additional Commissioner. Respondent's arguments: The respondent No.2 opposed the petition, supporting the impugned order and praying for its rejection.