|
Case Title |
VIBGYOR SERVICES vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. |
|
Court |
Delhi High Court |
|
Honorable Judges |
JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA |
|
Citation |
2024 (01) GSTPanacea 41 HC Delhi W.P.(C) 13058/2023 & CM. APPLS. 51580/2023 |
|
Judgement Date |
09-January-2024 |
Petitioner challenges the Order-in-Appeal dated 14.07.2023, which dismissed their appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 13.12.2022 solely on grounds of limitation. The Order-in-Appeal highlights that the Order-in-Original was issued on 30.12.2022, setting the deadline for filing the appeal as 29.03.2023, starting from the same date. However, the appeal was presumably filed after this deadline, leading to its rejection.
On May 22, 2023, a case was brought before the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding a delay in filing an appeal, which was determined to be almost two months overdue. Referring to Section 107 (4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the Commissioner ruled that while a delay of one month could be excused with sufficient cause shown, in this instance, where the appeal was delayed by nearly two months, it was considered time-barred. The Commissioner acknowledged the appellant’s argument that the Order-in-Original was communicated only on March 7, 2023. However, this contention was rejected on the basis of lack of documentary evidence provided by the petitioner.
During the proceedings, the learned counsel representing the Department acknowledged that they had reviewed the records concerning the service of the Order-in-Original. It was revealed that although the Order-in-Original was dispatched on December 30, 2022, the envelope containing it was returned undelivered on January 4, 2023, marked with ‘no such firm’. Subsequently, the Department took no further action to serve the Order-in-Original. The counsel further stated that according to the records, the petitioner had approached the Department and received a copy of the order only on March 7, 2023.
In summary, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the delay in filing the appeal could not be condoned beyond one month as per the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Despite the petitioner’s claim regarding the delayed communication of the Order-in-Original, the lack of supporting documentary evidence led to the rejection of this argument. Additionally, the Department’s failure to take action after the initial attempt to deliver the order resulted in the petitioner receiving the order significantly later than the date of dispatch.
The petitioner in a legal case argued that they were not served with the Order-in-Original until March 7, 2023. Therefore, they contended that the period for filing an appeal should start from this date. Given that the limitation for filing an appeal is 90 days, the petitioner asserted that their appeal, filed on May 22, 2023, fell within this timeframe, as calculated from March 7, 2023.
Upon consideration of these arguments, the court determined that the appeal was indeed filed within the period of limitation computed from March 7, 2023. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated July 14, 2023. The appeal was restored to its original number on the records of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) was instructed to inform the parties about the next date of hearing fixed by the Commissioner.
As a result, the petition was disposed of in accordance with the above terms.
Download Pdf:
VIBGYOR SERVICES
For Reference Visit:
Delhi High Court
Read Another Case Law:
GST Case Law