Judicial Conscience Does Not Permit Us To Reject The Cause As Bogus: Bombay HC Refers To Article 300A While Condoning Delay Beyond Condonable Period In Appeal Seeking IGST Refund
The Bombay High Court quashed and set aside an order that rejected an appeal against the order of Commissioner CGST and Central Excise seeking an IGST refund in a case where the appeal was barred by delay beyond the condonable period prescribed by the statute. The Court also quashed the original order and remanded the matter back to the original authority to pass a fresh order.
The Court was hearing the Writ Petition against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise and the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise.
The bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Jitendra Jain observed, “Our judicial conscience does not permit us to reject this cause shown as bogus particularly in view of the fact that petitioner was an individual and the GST regime was at a nascent stage.”
Advocate Bharat Raichandani appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Jitendra B. Mishra appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
The Petitioner Sanjeev Suresh Desai operating as M/s. Air Miracle, undertakes heating, ventilation, air conditioning and cleanroom projects for hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, IVF laboratories, biotech laboratories etc. They supplied goods to Apothecon Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., charging and paying IGST at 18%. He sought a refund for the IGST paid, but the application was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST without providing reasons or applying proper consideration.
Later, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST was appealed before the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise who rejected the appeal on the grounds that the appeal ought to have been filed within three months with a provision to extend by one month upon sufficient cause being shown, but the appeal was filed about 29 days late and hence barred by limitation.
The Court agreed with the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise that he did not have the power to extend the time limit after the extendable one-month period was over.
The Court said, “We do not blame respondent no. 3 because he did not have power to condone this delay but we have power.”
Accordingly, the Court quashed and set aside the orders passed by the respective authorities.
Finally, the Court disposed of both the Petitions.
Cause Title: Sanjeev Suresh Desai v. Union of India (Neutral Ciation: 2024:BHC-OS:9115-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Adv. Bharat Raichandani and Adv. Prathamesh Gargate
Respondent: Adv. Jitendra B. Mishra, Adv. P.S. Patkar and Addl GP Jyoti Chavan