Case Law Details
Sruthi Raj Vs Commissioner of CGST & C.Ex. (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court has directed the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) to admit an appeal filed by Sruthi Raj, setting aside a previous order that rejected an application for condonation of delay. The appellant had challenged an order dated March 29, 2023, issued by the Commissioner (Appeals-II).
The appellant contended that she never received a copy of the said order and became aware of it only when her bank account was frozen. Evidence submitted, including a communication under the Right to Information Act dated November 11, 2024, showed that the original order, dispatched by speed post on March 30, 2023, was returned undelivered. While a subsequent email dispatch to the appellant’s Chartered Accountant was noted, the Chartered Accountant claimed non-receipt, citing a potential spam folder issue.
The High Court observed that there was no counter-evidence from the department to refute the appellant’s claims. Consequently, the court held that any delay should be condoned. The order dated December 12, 2024, passed by CESTAT, has been quashed and set aside. The CESTAT Registry has been instructed to register the appeal and present it to the Tribunal for a decision on its merits. The appeal was disposed of without an order as to costs.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Appellant is impugning an order dated 12.12.2024 passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai (CESTAT), rejecting appellant’s application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Appellant sought to impugn an order dated 29.3.2023 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-II) before the CESTAT.
2. It is appellant’s case that appellant never received a copy of the said order dated 29.3.2023 and appellant got to know, for the first time, only when appellant’s bank account was frozen by the department.
3. Appellant has filed with the appeal a copy of the communication dated 11.11.2024 received by appellant under the Right to Information Act, in which it is noted that the order that was dispatched by speed post on 30.3.2023 came to be returned undelivered. Why it was returned undelivered, no reason is given. There is no affidavit from the department or explanation referred to in the impugned order. The communication received under the Right to Information Act states that the order was thereafter sent by email to vijaysukumarca@gmail.com on 13.4.2023 at 2.59 pm. However, the impugned order does not refer to any of this.
4. Moreover, it is appellant’s case that said Vijay Sukumar, who was appellant’s Chartered Accountant, stated that he has not received the email and perhaps the order would have got lost in spam folder in email account.
5. In these circumstances, since there is no evidence to counter appellant’s case, in our view, the delay, if any, ought to be condoned.
6. Consequently, the order dated 12.12.2024 is quashed and set aside. The Registry of CESTAT shall register the appeal and place it before the Tribunal for appropriate orders on merits.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, interim applications stand closed.
Author Bio
