Ms Elanco India Pvt. Ltd. v. the Excise and Taxation Officer Cum Proper Officer GST Ward 1 Ambala and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Aug 2024CWP/19286/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a CGST order due to alleged denial of appeal rights caused by non-communication, the High Court accepted that the petitioner was prevented from filing on time. However, the writ was not quashed; instead, the court directed the petitioner to file an appeal within 15 days for merits-based adjudication by the Appellate Authority.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Appellate Authority to examine the merits of an appeal filed within 15 days, to be decided sans limitation within three months.

Ms Elanco India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

CWP-19286-2024 - 1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

106

¶4

CWP-19286-2024 Decided on : 09.08.2024

¶5

M/s Elanco India Pvt. Ltd.

¶6

. . . Petitioner(s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Excise and Taxation Officer, Ward-1, Ambala and another

¶9

. . . Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

¶11

PRESENT: Ms. Priyanka Rathi, Advocate and Mr. Ashwini Chandrasekaran, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

¶12

¶13

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral)

¶14

The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition to quash impugned order dated 30.12.2023 passed by the Taxation and Excise officer.

¶15

The Petitioner is a company engaged in the business of animal health products and medicaments, whereby the petitioner is a subsidiary of Elanco Netherlands holding B.V., which is a global leader in animal health dedicated to innovating and delivering products and services to prevent and treat disease in farm animals and pets.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that t he Impugned Order dated 30.12.2023 was discovered by the Appellant during the 2019-20 scrutiny proceedings. Respondent No. 1 failed to deliver the order through any means specified in Section 169 of the CGST Act. Consequently, the time limit to appeal under Section 107, expired on 30.03.2024, effectively denying the Petitioner the right to appeal and leaving them without any

¶17

JAWALA RAM 2024.08.14 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶18

CWP-19286-2024 - 2 -

¶19

remedy.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 30.12.2023, was placed on the portal without any communication to the petitioner.

¶21

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had already requested for cancellation of its registration way-back in the year 2020, and the impugned order was passed in December, 2023, thus, same was not in their knowledge. It came to their notice only in April, 2024. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred present writ petition on the ground that the limitation period in terms of Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, of filing an appeal has expired, keeping in view period calculated from the date of passing of the impugned order.

¶22

We have considered the submissions, and noticed that the petitioner had been conveyed the order only in April 2024, and therefore, the appeal could have been filed only after April 2024, within the stipulated period of 60 days i.e. the date when the order was communicated to the petitioner.

¶23

However, the provision only states that the limitation would count from the date of passing of the order.

¶24

In view of above, we are inclined to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was prevented from filing appeal within time.

¶25

Be that as it may, since there is a provision for filing of appeal, and the said provision necessary implies that the factual aspects shall be examined by the Appellate Authority.

¶26

JAWALA RAM 2024.08.14 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶27

CWP-19286-2024

¶28

¶29

We do not propose to entertain this writ petition and direct the Appellate Authority to examine the merits of the appeal, if the same is preferred within a period of 15 days henceforth, the same may be decided on merits sans limitation, preferably, within a period of three months.

¶30

Disposed of.

¶31

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

¶32

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE

¶33

August 09, 2024 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

¶34

JAWALA RAM 2024.08.14 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Ms Elanco India Pvt. Ltd. v. the Excise and Taxation Officer Cum Proper Officer GST Ward 1 Ambala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Elanco India Pvt. Ltd. v. the Excise and Taxation Officer Cum Proper Officer GST Ward 1 Ambala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Vijay Kumar Garg Contractors Vs Commissioner of Income Tax

Commissioner I.T.Rohtak Vs M/S K.L.Steel Industries

M/S Vardhman Polytex Ltd. Vs C I T and Anr.

Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Estate Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Tds Circle

Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Estate Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Tds Circle

Ms Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Addittional Commissioner Cgst Gurugram and Another