2019 Taxo.online 259
WRIT TAX No. – 42 of 2019 dated 24.04.2019
M/s RAJ ENTERPRISES AND ANOTHER
ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, ALIGARH AND ANOTHER
Central Goods and Service Tax Act
Ashok Kumar, Justice
Matter remanded back
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shyam Sunder
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.
By the impugned order dated 04.12.2018, the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Aligarh has rejected the appeal of the petitioners on the ground that the same is filed beyond the limitation.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the copy of the order of assessing authority was served upon the petitioner on 11.01.2018 and the appeal has to be filed beyond the period of three months from the date of receiving of copy of the order on 14.06.2018. The appellate authority, therefore has rejected the appeal on the ground that he has no authority to condone the delay beyond the period of 30 days as provided under Section 107(4) of the U.P. VAT Act.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the order passed by the first appellate authority.
The appeal was not filed by the petitioner within the stipulated period for the reason that the owner/proprietor of the firm was ill in between 07.04.2018 to 13.06.2018.
In support of ailment, the petitioner has produced the copies of the medical certificate issued by the Senior Medical Practitioner namely Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, MS, MCH (Neuro). The ailment which has been mentioned in the certificate prima facie appears to be the ailment which could take some time for recovery.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Central Industrial Security Forces, FGUTPP Unit vs. Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise and 2 others in which this Court has observed as follows:
“Admittedly the appeal was filed beyond time, however, in the facts and circumstances we are of the considered opinion that the delay was not occasioned because of any fault on the part of the petitioner but was due to circumstances which was beyond his control. However since the Act does not empowers the appellate authority to condone the delay 30 days beyond the prescribed limitation, no illegality is found to have been committed by the appellate authority however in the interest of justice we feel that the petitioner is entitled to be afforded an opportunity of hearing on merits.”
Considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and the decision cited, the impugned order dated 04.12.2018 passed by the appellate authority is set aside and the matter is remanded before the first appellate authority (respondent no.1) with a direction to consider and adjudicate upon the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits without raising any objection on the limitation, after notice and opportunity of hearing to all concerned.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
Order Date :- 24.4.2019