The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Reliance Securities Ltd. v. Commissioner (Appeals)-II of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai [Writ Petition No. 1024/2025 dated April 8, 2025] set aside the Order-in-Appeal (“the Impugned Order”) on the ground that the alleged delay of four days was reasonable on account of late communication of the Order and noted that the appeal could be filed within an extended time period under Section 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”).
Facts:
M/s. Reliance Securities Ltd. (“the Petitioner”) challenged the Impugned Order dated April 18, 2024 and Rectification Rejection Order dated October 24, 2024, which was issued by the Commissioner (Appeals) – II of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai (“the Respondent”), whereby the Respondent had dismissed the same as being time-barred under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act. The Respondents had also dismissed the evidence of date of communication of Order by means of speed post tracking slip, postal stamp on the envelope, and a supporting affidavit affirming that the Order in Original dated April 24, 2023, was received on April 29, 2023. Post which, the Petitioner challenged the Impugned Order and filed the present writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court.
Issue:
Whether the dismissal of the Appeal on the ground of marginal delay arising due to late communication of Order in Original is sustainable in Law when appeal can be filed within the extended time period of one month and the alleged delay is a mere 4 days?
Held:
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 1024/2025 held as under:
- Observed that the Respondent disregarded the evidence of the date of communication of the Order in Original produced before him by the Petitioner in the form of a speed-post tracking slip, a postal stamp on the envelope and a specific affidavit filed.
- Observed that the Petitioner had submitted documentary evidence, including the speed post tracking slip and the specific affidavit along with the postal stamp on the envelope, confirming that the Order in Original dated April 24, 2023, was received on April 29, 2023.
- Noted that the Respondent failed to produce any material to dispute this claim and even acknowledged the same during proceedings.
- Ruled that, Impugned Order dated April 18, 2024 along with Rectification Order dated October 24, 2024 shall be set aside and restoration of Petitioner’s Appeal to the Respondent for consideration on merits.
- The Respondent is additionally directed to grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner and to pass a reasoned order.
CLICK HERE FOR OFFICIAL JUDGMENT COPY
(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
