M/S Vastya Earthmovers Private Limited Through Its Director Premnarayan Jat vs. Joint Commissioner (Appeals)

Held

The Court held that the Appellate Authority failed to consider the grounds raised by the petitioner in their application for condonation of delay. The Court found merit in the petitioner's submission that the limitation period should be counted from the date of communication of the order, especially when there was a contention of non-receipt of proper intimation. The Court quashed the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority. The matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority to decide the question of delay afresh, without being influenced by the previous order. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the primary focus was on the proper determination of the delay and its condonation.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Vastya Earthmovers Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 23.01.2025 passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals). The Appellate Authority had rejected the petitioner's appeal, filed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, on the grounds that it was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The petitioner contended that they were unaware of the system-generated refund applications and the rejection order, as no direct notification appeared on the GST portal, and notices were not visible in the designated tabs. They claimed to have initiated the appeal process only after becoming aware of the situation, seeking lawful refund of IGST paid on exports. The revenue argued that service of notice was effected as per Section 169(1)(d) of the Act by making it available on the common portal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, commences from the date of communication of the order or from the date it is made available on the GST portal. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the limitation period should be counted from the date of communication of the order. They relied on an order from the Co-ordinate Bench at Jabalpur in M/s Lakhan Singh Chouhan and Company V/s Union of India and others, which held that the limitation starts from the date of communication of the order. The petitioner also asserted that they had no notice or intimation regarding the refund applications and rejection orders, and the system-generated notices were not visible on the GST portal. Revenue's arguments: The respondents contended that service of notice was validly effected as per Section 169(1)(d) of the Act, 2017, by making the notice available on the common portal.