Golcha Garments VS Joint Commissioner of GST

A writ petition has been filed challenging the ‘impugned order’ dated 26.08.2022, referred to as Order-in-Appeal No.87/2022-GST/GST (Appeals), issued by the first respondent. This order, issued in the capacity of the Appellate Authority, pertains to an appeal filed against the second respondent’s order dated 29.03.2021, referenced as No.ZY3303210406115, concerning a refund claim. The petitioner seeks judicial review of the impugned order on grounds of legality, procedural irregularity, and substantive justice, highlighting concerns regarding due process and fair adjudication.

“A writ petition challenges the ‘impugned order’ dated 26.08.2022, referenced as Order-in-Appeal No.87/2022-GST/GST (Appeals), issued by the first respondent acting as the Appellate Authority. The petition contests the decision made against an appeal lodged against the order dated 29.03.2021 involving a refund claim. Counsel for the petitioner argues that while the impugned order favored their stance on merits, it denied relief solely based on procedural grounds of appeal limitation. Mr. Sanjay Rajpurohit, representing M/s. Rajpurohit Law House, asserts that despite the favorable merit finding, the remedy was withheld due to the appeal’s time-barred status. Mr. Rajnish Pathiyil, Senior Panel Counsel for Customs and Indirect Tax, acknowledges receipt of notice on behalf of both respondents. Considering the agreed facts and procedural trajectory, both parties consented to advancing the main writ petition without the need for a counter affidavit from the Revenue Department.

A writ petition challenges the ‘impugned order’ dated 26.08.2022, referenced as Order-in-Appeal No.87/2022-GST/GST (Appeals), issued by the first respondent acting as the Appellate Authority. The petition contests the decision made against an appeal lodged against the order dated 29.03.2021 involving a refund claim. Counsel for the petitioner argues that while the impugned order favored their stance on merits, it denied relief solely based on procedural grounds of appeal limitation. The respondents’ senior panel counsel accepts notice on behalf of both parties. The court, considering the case’s trajectory and circumstances, proceeded with the main writ petition without requiring a counter affidavit from the Revenue Department. The appeal was deemed time-barred under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, despite the extension of limitation periods during the Covid-19 period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, as per relevant Supreme Court orders.

A writ petition challenges the ‘impugned order’ dated 26.08.2022, referenced as Order-in-Appeal No.87/2022-GST/GST (Appeals), issued by the first respondent acting as the Appellate Authority. The petition contests the decision made against an appeal lodged against the order dated 29.03.2021 involving a refund claim. Counsel for the petitioner argues that while the impugned order favored their stance on merits, it denied relief solely based on procedural grounds of appeal limitation. The respondents’ senior panel counsel accepts notice on behalf of both parties. Considering the circumstances, no counter affidavit from the Revenue Department is deemed necessary, and with mutual consent, the main writ petition proceeds. The original order by the second respondent on 29.03.2021 fell within the COVID-19 period as defined from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, which extended the limitation period under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Supreme Court’s directive in (2022) 3 SCC 117 and subsequent orders extended the limitation period to 90 days from 01.03.2022 for cases affected by the pandemic, irrespective of the remaining balance of the original limitation period.

A writ petition challenges the ‘impugned order’ dated 26.08.2022, referenced as Order-in-Appeal No.87/2022-GST/GST (Appeals), issued by the first respondent acting as the Appellate Authority. The petition contests the decision made against an appeal lodged against the order dated 29.03.2021, involving a refund claim. Counsel for the petitioner argues that while the impugned order favored their stance on merits, it denied relief solely based on procedural grounds of appeal limitation. Mr. Sanjay Rajpurohit, representing M/s. Rajpurohit Law House, highlighted that despite a favorable finding on the merits, the appeal was dismissed due to being filed one day beyond the extended limitation period granted by the Supreme Court during the Covid-19 period (15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022). The respondents’ senior panel counsel, Mr. Rajnish Pathiyil, has accepted notice on behalf of both parties. Given the facts and procedural trajectory of the case, both parties agreed that a counter affidavit from the Revenue Department is unnecessary, leading to the main writ petition being taken up for consideration.

A writ petition challenges the ‘impugned order’ dated 26.08.2022, referenced as Order-in-Appeal No.87/2022-GST/GST (Appeals), issued by the first respondent acting as the Appellate Authority. The petition contests the decision made against an appeal lodged against the order dated 29.03.2021, involving a refund claim. Counsel for the petitioner argues that while the impugned order favored their stance on merits, it denied relief solely based on procedural grounds of appeal limitation. The respondents’ senior panel counsel accepts notice on behalf of both parties.