Disposed

Prashant Borah v. the Union of India

Gauhati HC10 Sept 2024WP(C)/3289/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an appellate order rejecting the petitioner's GST appeal as time-barred. The court held the appeal filed 27.05.2022 was within limitation under the Supreme Court's Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3/2020 order, quashed the impugned order and restored the appeal for decision on merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned appellate order dated 31.07.2023 set aside and quashed; appeal restored to Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits.

Prashant Borah Vs the Union of India — GST and Indirect Tax | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010128642024

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/3289/2024

¶5

Prashant Borah S/O- LATE TARUN CH. BORAH, R/O- C/O- UNICORN GAS AGENCY, A.T ROAD, NALIAPOOL, P.O, P.S AND DIST-DIBRUGARH, ASSAM

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE UNION OF INDIA

¶8

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA , MINISTRY OF FINANCE NEW DELHI

¶9

2:THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DIBRUGARH MILAN NAGAR LANE-F P.O. C.R. BUILDING DIBRUGARH-786001.

¶10

3:THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DIBRUGARH MILAN NAGAR LANE-F P.O. C.R. BUILDING DIBRUGARH-786001.

¶11

4:THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) 4) CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS

¶12

3RD FLOOR GST BHAWAN KEDAR ROAD

¶13

Page No.# 2/3

¶14

MACHKHOWA GUWAHATI-0

¶15

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. S. Mishra, Advocate

¶16

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. C. Keyal, Standing counsel : Ms. K. Phukan, CGC : Mr. B. Gogoi, Standing Counsel

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 11.09.2024

¶20

The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 31.07.2023 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST Central Excise & Customs in Order-in-Appeal No.407/GHY(A)/COM/ST/DIB/2023. The sole ground on which the instant writ petition has been filed is that the Petitioner was not granted the benefit of the order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3/2020.

¶21

Mr. R. S. Mishra, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Order-in-Original was passed on 02.02.2022. The learned counsel further submitted that taking into account paragraph No.5(III) of the order dated 10.01.2022 passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3/2020, the Petitioner could have filed the said appeal on or before 29.05.2022. He further submitted that in the instant case, the Petitioner had filed the appeal on 27.05.2022. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) in passing the impugned order dated 31.07.2023 had failed to take into consideration the above aspect of the matter and as such the impugned order is required to be interfered with.

¶22

Page No.# 3/3

¶23

Mr. S. C. Keyal, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the CGST submits that he would not contest on this aspect of the matter taking into account the order dated 10.01.2022 passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3/2020.

¶24

This Court having given anxious consideration to the above submissions is of the opinion that the Petitioner had time to file the appeal on or before 29.05.2022. The appeal was filed on 27.05.2022. The said appeal ought to have been taken into consideration as an appeal filed within the period of limitation in view of the order dated 10.01.2022 passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3/2020.

¶25

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31.07.2023 passed in Orderin-Appeal No.407/GHY(A)/COM/ST/DIB/2023 by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Central Excise and Customs is set aside and quashed. The Appeal so filed by the Petitioner before the Commissioner (Appeals) is restored to the file of the said Authority.

¶26

This Court therefore directs the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST Central Excise and Customs to decide the appeal filed against the Orderin-Original No.34/ST/ADJ/ACD/2021-22 dated 02.02.2022 on merits.

¶27

With above observations and directions, the instant petition stands disposed of.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Prashant Borah v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Borah v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abraham Kaya Techi Vs Union of India and Anr.

Dashrath Yadav and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Sukur Ali Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Pradip Hazarika Vs Apurba Kumar Hazarika and 3 Ors.

Jahidul Islam Mullah Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Nucent Finance Limited Vs National Plywood Industries Ltd.