Rinku Das Vs Union of India and 3 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Rinku Das Vs Union of India and 3 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of in the petitioner's favour: the impugned Order-in-Appeal No.29/DIB/CE(A)/GHY/2022 dated 29.12.2022 set aside and quashed; the petitioner's appeal restored to the file of the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST Central Excise & Customs, who is directed to decide it on merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's appeal filed on 17.05.2022 against the Order-in-Original dated 28.01.2022 was within the period of limitation in view of paragraph 5(III) of the Supreme Court's order dated 10.01.2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3/2020, and whether the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 29.12.2022, which denied that benefit, required interference.

Court's answer

Having regard to the Supreme Court's order dated 10.01.2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3/2020, the petitioner had time to file the appeal on or before 29.05.2022, and the appeal filed on 17.05.2022 ought to have been taken into consideration as an appeal filed within the period of limitation.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 29.12.2022 passed in Order-in-Appeal No.29/DIB/CE(A)/GHY/2022 is set aside and quashed, and the appeal filed by the petitioner is restored to the file of the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST Central Excise & Customs.

Key takeaways

The Commissioner (Appeals), CGST Central Excise and Customs is directed to decide the appeal filed against Order-in-Original No. /ST/ADJ/ACD/2021-22 dated 28.01.2022 on merits.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Soumitra Saikia, J.), 06.01.2026, WP(C)/4034/2023 - Rinku Das v. Union of India & 3 Ors: Writ petition challenging Order-in-Appeal No.29/DIB/CE(A)/GHY/2022 dated 29.12.2022 of the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST Central Excise & Customs, on the sole ground that the benefit of the Supreme Court's order dated 10.01.2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3/2020 (paragraph 5(III) limitation extension) was not granted. The appellant had filed his appeal on 17.05.2022 against the Order-in-Original No. /ST/ADJ/ACD/2021-22 dated 28.01.2022, well within the extended deadline of 29.05.2022. Counsel for the CGST did not contest the point. Holding the appeal to have been within limitation, the Court set aside and quashed the impugned order, restored the appeal to the file of the Commissioner (Appeals), and directed that authority to decide the appeal on merits.

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010153062023

undefined

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

Case No. : WP(C)/4034/2023

RINKU DAS

S/O SANATH DAS, R/O NEW COLONY NAHARKATIA, BIDYAMANDIR SCHOOL, P.O. AND P.S.-NAHARKATIA, DIST- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN786610

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

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

3:THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DIBRUGARH C.R. BUILDING DIBRUGARH-786001

4:THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CGST CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS 3RD FLOOR GST BHAWAN KEDAR ROAD MACHKHOWA GUWAHATI-78100

Page No.# 2/3

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K GUPTA, MS B SARMA,MR. R S MISHRA

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, GST

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

ORDER

06.01.2026

Heard Mr. R.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Jain, learned Standing Counsel, GST.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 29.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST Central Excise & Customs in Order-in-Appeal No.29/DIB/CE(A)/GHY/2022. 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.

3. Mr. R. S. Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Order-in-Original was passed on 28.01.2022. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits 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 submits that in the instant case, the petitioner had filed the appeal on 17.05.2022. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) in passing the impugned order dated 29.12.2022 had failed to take into consideration the above aspect of the matter and as such the impugned order is required to be interfered with.

Page No.# 3/3

4. Mr. K. Jain, 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.

5. 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 17.05.2022. 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.

6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST Central Excise & Customs in Order-in-Appeal No.29/DIB/CE(A)/GHY/2022 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.

7. This Court therefore, directs the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST Central Excise and Customs to decide the appeal filed against the Order-in-Original No. /ST/ADJ/ACD/2021-22 dated 28.01.2022 on merits.

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

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant