Case Law Details
Guduru Chandra Sekhar Vs Union of India (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
In the instant case, though the petitioner herein initially filed appeal on 17.08.2020, before the Commissioner Of Customs and Central Tax (Appeals), it is clear from Form-CAI that the appellant undertook to pay the mandatory pre-deposit of 7.5% of the disputed amount but did not make any deposit to the said effect. Obviously, on the ground that the petitioner herein failed to comply with the above referred mandatory requirement of pre-deposit, the tCommissioner Of Customs and Central Tax (Appeals)-appellate authority, by way of the order, dated 3. 11.2020, rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner herein in limini on the sole ground of non-compliance of the provisions of Section 129-E of the Act. It is also not in controversy that once again on 03.12.2020, by complying with the said mandatory requirement, as stipulated under Section 129-E of the Act, petitioner herein preferred the appeal. It is also significant to note in this context that, vide notification, dated 30.09.2020, the Government of India prescribed 31st day of December, 2020 as the end date for the purpose of time limit. It is also pertinent to note in this context that the Hon’ble Apex Court, vide order, dated 08.03.2021, in Suo motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.03 of 2020, ordered exclusion of the time between 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 from the computation of limitation period.
As observed supra, on the earlier occasion, when the petitioner herein approached the Commissioner Of Customs and Central Tax (Appeals)-appellate authority, obviously without complying with the mandatory requirement as stipulated under Section 129-E of the Act, the Commissioner Of Customs and Central Tax (Appeals) refused to entertain the appeal and the said order, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be faulted. It is also to be noted that the said order was not passed on merits of the matter but only on the sole ground of failure on the part of the petitioner to comply with the requirement of pre-deposit. Admittedly, once again, on 03.12.2020, after scrupulously adhering to the mandatory requirement of pre-deposit, petitioner herein submitted the appeal once again, but the Commissioner Of Customs and Central Tax (Appeals) herein, vide the impugned letter, declined to admit the said appeal on the ground that the petitioner herein would not be entitled under the Government Orders to file appeals repeatedly. In the considered opinion of this Court, the filing of appeal in the instant case would not be regarded as filing of appeals repeatedly since the earlier order came to be passed by the Commissioner Of Customs and Central Tax (Appeals) not on merits but only on the sole ground of failure on the part of the petitioner herein to comply with the mandatory requirement of law but not on merits. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said order, dated 03.11.2020, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be regarded as the order on merits but is only an order refusing to entertain the appeal. Therefore, the contention of the learned Senior Standing Counsel that the petitioner herein is required to be relegated to the alternative remedy of appeal to the CESTAT cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, rejected.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
A letter bearing A.No.111/2020 (V) CUS, dated 31.12.2020, of the Principal Commissioner of GST & Customs (Appeals)-third respondent herein, refusing to admit the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein, is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
